Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Stoke-Derby Link Road

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the precise date on which the preferred route of the Stoke-Derby link road will be published.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I appreciate the urgent need for a decision but regret that I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 16th November.

Mr. Knox: Is the Minister aware of the rising anger and frustration of my constituents in Draycott, Tean, and Checkley about the delay in announcing the route? What are the reasons for this delay?

Mr. Horam: There are problems with this fairly lengthy piece of proposed road. As the hon. Member knows, it is 42 miles in all, and there are problems in deciding the route at either end. We will get on with the most important and urgent bits and see whether we can chop it up, particularly the parts relating to the villages that the hon. Member has mentioned.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the Minister bear in mind that the public inquiry into the Allestree link road at Derby needs to know the departmental plans for the proposed Derby-Stoke road and for the M42? Will he do his best to expedite this, bearing in mind the Leitch recommendation?

Mr. Horam: I shall take that point into account. I am not sure that it is

essential for the public inquiry to have the firm plans of the eastern end of the proposed new road, but I shall see what can be done.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Does the Minister accept that the excellent proposal put forward by DESTAG—t he Derby-Stoke Action Group—for bypasses around Derbyshire villages that are on the M42 will save about £30 million—particularly the proposals put forward by the Midland Road Construction Unit? Will he bear the cost factor in mind when he comes to a final decision?

Mr. Horam: I shall bear in mind the well-thought-out and imaginative proposals for solving these problems. I note that they involve much less public expenditure. We are examining the proposals of the action group, but of course we must take account of the very important environmental considerations. We must get the right solutions, and not just go for those solutions that cost least money.

Traffic Licensing Laws

Mr. Bulmer: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from county councils on traffic licensing laws; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Horam: The county councils have argued that road service licensing of buses and coaches by the traffic commissioners should be transferred to them. The Transport Bill will require the traffic commissioners to have regard to counties' plans and policies, and we believe that this is the right modification.

Mr. Bulmer: Will the Minister think again about the problems of all rural areas? Does he appreciate that in the context of the services in Hereford and Worcester, three-year projections, let alone three-year agreements, are very difficult, because the input figures are so uncertain? Does he accept the need to encourage local experiments, with traditional services failing fast, and will he consider the time it takes to obtain a licence?

Mr. Horam: No Government have done more than we have for transport in rural areas. As for local experiments, the hon. Member will be aware


of our own Passenger Transport (Experimental Areas) Act, which does precisely what he is asking.

Rail Fares

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from commuters following the latest round of increases in rail fares.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): As explained to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on 25th January, I have received one petition and about 90 letters since the increase was announced in November 1977.

Mr. Crouch: Does the move by British Rail to raise fares by 16½ per cent. not worry the Secretary of State at all? Has he no regard for the views of the Price Commission, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and even the Prime Minister on this departure from the 10 per cent. rule?

Mr. Rodgers: I am very concerned about rising rail fares, as every reasonable man must be. I am sorry that fares in London and the South-East have gone up more than in other parts of the country. We have discussed this matter often in the House. The real problem is that of making sure that fares do not rise at a time when the House does not want the subsidy to rise, either. Also, the hon. Member must consider the case for comfort and convenience in services which the Chairman of British Rail is anxious to improve if he can.

Mr. Ovenden: Does my right hon. Friend not find the attitude of some Conservative Back Benchers somewhat opportunist, in view of the speech of the Shadow Chancellor in Chatham on Friday night, when he told commuters that they could expect no hand-outs from a future Conservative Government? Many of us who represent commuter constituencies are far happier with this Government's commitment to the continuation of subsidies than we are with claims of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) that subsidies are not necessary. If the subsidies are abolished, how much can we expect fares to increase?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend is right to note the speech made by the right hon

and learned Member, who speaks on these matters more frankly than do many of his Conservative colleagues. The House will also recall that in voting against the Second Reading of the Transport Bill only 10 days ago, the Opposition cast a vote against continuing the rail subsidy for the next year. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like it, but there is a great deal of ambivalence in their attitude.

Mr. Pattie: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present situation is difficult for commuters, such as those in my constituency, because they are having to pay higher fares for a reduced service, since many of their trains have been reduced in length and this is causing serious overcrowding in peak periods?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree that there is a problem, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the difficulty experienced by commuters and the extent to which they are committed in respect of where they live in the travel-to-work areas. I do not minimise that consideration, but I must point out that there are no easy answers. It appears that some Conservative Members are anxious to have it both ways, namely, to keep fares down and to cut the subsidy.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at the heart of the commuter problem is the fact that too many people work too far from where they live? Will he have words with the Secretary of State for the Environment with a view to reversing the new policy of the Location of Offices Bureau and restoring the old policy of dispersing office employment from central London?

Mr. Rodgers: I am not sure that I can make the promise that my hon. Friend seeks, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will note that point. It is true that many of our travel problems have arisen because major planning decisions made over the years have not taken account of the cost and time spent in travelling.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what worries corn-minters is not the Opposition's stand on the totally inadequate Transport Bill but the fact that in the last three years commuters have experienced the biggest series


of rail fare increases in history? Will he now consider the suggestion made in the Evening Standard and elsewhere that employers should not be prevented by public policy from offering their staffs new travel-to-work schemes? Is that not a constructive way forward?

Mr. Rodgers: I can understand the search for an easy way out of this complex problem, but commuter problems do not arise only in the South-East travel-to-work area. They arise in all parts of Britain and it is difficult to find a scheme that meets everybody's requirement. It is certainly unreasonable to expect people in other parts of the country to put their hands in their pockets to help those in
the South-East.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the Minister now answer the question that I put to him? It does not require taxpayers to put their hands in their pockets; it is a constructive suggestion that may lead to progress. Surely the Secretary of State must realise the difficulties. Will he please take the suggestion seriously?

Mr. Rodgers: I am taking it seriously, but the hon. Gentleman must face the fact that the suggestion that he has in mind would be a breach of the pay policy and would affect some people and not others. We must try to arrive at a policy that is fair as between individuals and groups.

Drivers' Hours and Conditions

Mr. Fry: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has given to the passenger and freight transport industries on the enforcement of the EEC regulations on distances driven; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent advice he has given to the road haulage industry on the implementation of EEC drivers' hours and distances regulations.

Mr. William Rodgers: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on 11th January, except to say that I am issuing this week a leaflet giving what I hope is helpful guidance.

Mr. Fry: Is the Minister aware that the advice given to operators is that, if

in the first six months they break the distance limit, there will be no prosecutions but that, on the other hand, if they break any other of the provisions, those infringements could be taken into consideration? Does he not regard this situation as unsatisfactory in regard to the distance limit, and will he think again about the matter of prosecution?

Mr. Rodgers: Later today we are discussing these matters. Some are so complex and important to the industry that I am hesitant to give a quick reply, which may lead to misunderstanding elsewhere. I believe that there should be a running-in period in respect of the regulations. We understand that people are feeling their way in this matter and are becoming accustomed to the new regulations, which will have to operate fully in due course.

Mr. Shepherd: I appreciate the considerations that the right hon. Gentleman outlines, but will he confirm that the concept of education and not enforcement is concurred with in the Home Office and among the police authorities?

Mr. Rodgers: It is a well understood principle and it is not being operated for the first time. Previous changes in drivers' hours caused difficulties of this nature. All the authorities recognise the problem and are prepared to safeguard against it.

Mr. John Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the EEC regulations have been in operation since 1969 and that when the Conservatives negotiated for the United Kingdom to join the Common Market they did not endeavour to alter those regulations? Therefore, is it not a little odd that they should now come to the House and complain about them?

Mr. Rodgers: These regulations were inherited when we joined the Community and everybody recognises that they provide us with a considerable problem. Fortunately, there was a transitional period of five years, and we have now been able to negotiate a phased implementation. However, I do not underestimate the difficulties involved and we must try to sort them out.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter can be debated tonight.

Concessionary Fares

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has had from representatives of local authorities about his circular on the provision of concessionary fares to retirement pensioners and disabled people.

Mr. Horam: The circular was issued on 13th January and it is too early to judge the response of local authorities. I hope that where necessary they will introduce new or improved concessionary fares schemes as suggested in the circular.

Mr. Rodgers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposition originally given by his Department was that no new or modified scheme should be introduced, and that that advice was welcomed by organisations representing the aged and disabled? Does he accept that there are many mean-minded authorities which have no schemes, or inadequate schemes, for the elderly and disabled? What steps can he take to persuade local authorities to be a little more generous?

Mr. Horam: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. He will be interested to know that there are 56 districts with no scheme at all, and that of that total 23 districts are Conservative-controlled; none is Labour-controlled. Opposition Members would well advised to talk to some of their local authorities and to take our advice in introducing schemes for the elderly, the disabled and the blind.

Sir A. Meyer: Does the Minister agree that it is far better for the transport operators themselves to operate generous off-peak schemes for the disabled and pensioners than to use the rates to subsidise some people when there may be others who are in greater need?

Mr. Horam: No, I do not agree. The operators have difficulties already in meeting their existing obligations without our seeking to put upon them the onus of bringing in concessionary fares. We have a well-established situation in respect of concessionary fares, but there have been difficulties because some local authorities, mainly Conservative, are refusing to operate schemes. I hope that they will reconsider their position in the light of the Government's attitude.

Mr. Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a great deal of ill feeling in certain county areas because some authorities run schemes whereas others do not? Does he consider it appropriate that when county plans are drawn up there should be an effort to ensure, within a county boundary, that schemes of a similar nature are running in each part of that county?

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion. It causes bitterness when people in one area have a good scheme and others in a contiguous area have no scheme. Therefore, I urge county authorities to consider the matter.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that I am astonished at the hypocrisy on the Labour Benches? They are suggesting to Conservative councils that they should cut back on rate support grant—this applies especially to Essex, where the figure is 8p in the pound—rather than suggesting that we should have a national scheme that would be fairer throughout the country.

Mr. Horam: We have made it plain that public money for bus services is available and that nobody will go short of money for a reasonable service. Equally, we have made it plain that there is more money available for concessionary fare schemes. A total of £4 million is set aside for this purpose in the next financial year, and a sum of £25 million until the end of the decade. It is clear that the onus is on local authorities to take advantage of this situation. There is no hypocrisy on the Government side. I am worried about the hypocrisy on the Conservative side.

British Railways

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the British Railways Board.

Mrs. Bain: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the Chairman of British Railways.

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the Chairman of British Railways.

Mr. William Rodgers: On Friday.

Mr. Crawford: Will the Minister tell the Chairman of British Rail when he sees him on Friday that in Scotland the state of rolling stock—locomotives and coaches—is an asbolute, total and utter disgrace? Will he tell the chairman to do something about it?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. We are all aware—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too narrow-minded about this—that it is not only in Scotland that problems arise for British Rail about renewing rolling stock. British Rail has made it clear that it would like a higher level of investment. It can have a higher level of investment only with a higher level of public expenditure. I shall certainly draw the chairman's attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mrs. Bain: In connection with the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), will the Minister bear in mind that representations have also been made by the various unions involved with the railways about the rolling stock in Scotland? Will he also discuss with the Chairman of British Rail the fact that the Strathclyde Regional Council has estimated that it needs £325 million to implement a decent bus service for the West of Scotland? Will he bear in mind that his Government have enforced public expenditure cuts that were endorsed by the official Opposition? Will he now increase the level of central Government funding for public transport?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Lady is getting rather shrill. Those of us who discuss these problems in transport debates—I do not think that the hon. Lady always attends them—are familiar with the problems of British Rail, such as the tolerable levels of investment and the need to renew locomotives and rolling stock. We shall do the best we can.

Mr. Durant: When he is next discussing with the Chairman of British Rail the whole question of pricing policy on fares, will the Minister try to encourage a more flexible approach? That is something that could help the whole commuter situation, especially with more local decision about fares.

Mr. Rodgers: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "flexibility".

My instinct is to agree with him. I ought to say that it is one of those matters on which there are two arguments. There are those who would argue that at the moment there is too great a variety of fares on British Rail. This causes confusion in the minds of passengers. A balance must be struck. Certainly local views should be taken into account.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: When my right hon. Friend meets the Chairman of British Rail on Friday, as a good European will he draw Mr. Parker's attention to the recommendation of the European Parliament last year and the resolution of the Council of Europe only last week calling for the creation of a Channel Tunnel? Will he encourage British Rail to continue its study of a modest project within an attainable financial target?

Mr. Rodgers: This is one of the matters that go far beyond the responsibility of the Chairman of British Rail. It is something that has been discussed in the House from time to time and no doubt will be discussed again. The chairman is aware that a rail connection with the Continent would have advantages for British Railways as well as for others.

Mr. Powell: When the Minister meets the Chairman of British Rail, will he review with him the progress on the projects—I think that there are at least three of them—for speeding up and widening the rail links between Great Britain and Ulster, something which, incidentally, would have the effect of increasing the utilisation of British Rail capacity?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that the chairman will note the right hon. Gentleman's remarks—as he does all things said in the House about British Rail—and will take them into account.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Minister congratulate the Chairman of British Rail on using the word "cascade" for the process of dumping old rolling stock on commuter lines in the London area? Will he tell the chairman that many of my commuters are rather fed up with that process?

Mr. Rodgers: It is a rather beautiful euphemism for the process that my hon. Friend describes, but he puts his finger on the problem that, with limited scope for investment and a long life for wagons and rolling stock, a use must be found


for them. I know that the chairman is anxious to improve the quality of service on commuter lines, and he will continue to do all that he can.

Mr. Penhaligon: Does the Minister intend to discuss with the chairman the panic that may well descend on the railway network should the petrol deliveries strike come to fruition? Will he tell the House what other measures he is taking to deal with the situation?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman's question goes very wide, but I think that the Chairman of British Rail and all of us will take note of the present situation and do our best to manage with it, conserving fuel wherever we can.

Mr. Fry: As the Secretary of State has publicly denied the existence of any letter from himself to the Chairman of British Rail about the manning of type 56 locos, will he confirm that neither he nor his Department has given any advice to the Chairman of British Rail on this subject?

Mr. Rodgers: I shall rest on what I said previously in public, that there is no question of my giving directions of this kind to the Chairman of British Rail. The question of productivity generally arises later on in the Order Paper.

Freight (Market Competition)

Mr. Bagier: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure fair competition in the market for freight.

Mr. Horam: My right hon. Friend's policy is that there should be no subsidy to the movement of freight whether it goes by rail or by road.

Mr. Bagier: Does my hon. Friend agree that if it is Government policy and very much in line with Labour Party policy to encourage freight to go by the best means available, the situation at Didcot distribution centre is one that brings alarm and concern within the brackets of that consideration? Will he use his influence to draw the interested parties together to try to find a reasonable and amicable settlement of the difficulty?

Mr. Horam: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the situation that he mentions. I do not believe that it is

the job of the Department of Transport to become involved in every situation of this kind. In our White Paper we mentioned the possibility of a little "Neddy", in which the rail unions and road haulage unions would be involved to settle issues of this kind, but my hon. Friend will also know that there is a further Question on the Order Paper which specifically mentions this case.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the Minister and the Secretary of State try to persuade British Rail to be less secretive about trade figures and to publish them openly for each area and region so that we can make a better assessment of the financial position of the lines involved?

Mr. Horam: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. As he knows, in our answer to the report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries we made figures available for the first time showing a breakdown of the various parts of British Rail's business. We wish to be as informative as we can and to encourage good practice in all nationalised industries.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Bearing in mind that fair competition in freight is one thing, will the Minister take into consideration the fact that the Severn Bridge is vital to the economic life of Wales? Therefore, will he give an undertaking to think twice before once again raising tolls on the Severn Bridge?

Mr. Horam: The question of tolls on the Severn Bridge is slightly tangential to my hon. Friend's main point. None the less, I accept the point that we must be careful about the tolls on these major bridges and also on tunnels.

Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that ever since the formation of British Rail in 1948 the private owners of wagons of British Rail have not been able to try to obtain extra business for themselves and, therefore, for British Rail, other than the carriage of their own goods? Is he aware that there is a potentially large market for the owners of private wagons and for British Rail, and that this is done on most of the other nationalised railway systems in the world? Will he invite the Chairman of British Rail to discuss this matter with him to see whether something can be done?

Mr. Horam: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention in this respect to the Transport Bill, which improves the situation for private wagons of this kind in terms of receiving Section 8 grants. We are aware of the point and, to a degree, we are taking account of it.

Mr. James Lamond: Does my hon. Friend think that it assists British Rail to get freight business when it closes one of the biggest depots in the country, at Clegg Street, Oldham, with the resultant loss of 250 jobs there, putting in jeopardy the whole future of the Oldham-Manchester railway?

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is an obligation on British Rail to run its parcels service commercially. I am sure that it took that decision in the light of that obligation.

Bus Services (London)

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will institute a public inquiry into the adequacy of bus services in London and its surrounding areas.

Mr. Horam: The level of bus services is primarily a matter for the local authorities and operators concerned, but my right hon. Friend is carefully monitoring the bus situation in London and its surrounding areas.

Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that the bus services in Harlow and West Essex continue to be subject to continual cancellations, despite the efforts of management, with the result that the travelling public find it necessary to make other arrangements and there are increasing difficulties in making the buses pay? Is it not clear that the structure based upon the London Country Bus Service, controlled from Reigate, to the south of London, is totally wrong, and that a public inquiry should be instituted in order to detect what is wrong and to put it right so that the public have a much better service?

Mr. Horam: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about this. Indeed, he is right. There have been real problems with the London Country Bus Service. It inherited an old fleet and inadequate maintenance facilities. This is only very slowly being put right. Whether the struc

ture of the organisation is wrong is a different question. We must give it a little more time to see whether it can put things right within the existing structure.

Mr. Dykes: It is obviously difficult for the Government to intervene directly in these matters, but, if they did, the most powerful searchlight could be focused upon this problem. Does the Minister accept that there is a special problem in the outer London boroughs, including Harrow, with awkward bus routes, cancellations without warning for journeys beyond London—as the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) said—very awkward route configurations, which need to be brought up to date and rationalised, and a host of other problems, such as long delays between buses, and so on? It the Government give the right push to this kind of inquiry, we could begin the long job of reforming London bus services, which is long overdue.

Mr. Horam: I do not think that a special inquiry of this kind at this point would serve much purpose. The GLC has very recently accepted some proposals from London Transport concerning the bunching of buses, so progress is being made in that area. Equally, as I have said, we are aware of the problems in outer London areas arising from the delays in the London Country Bus Service. That is why we are specially monitoring the situation.

Dr. McDonald: Will the Minister also investigate the high rates of interest on loans to London Country Buses, charged by the National Bus Company, and the inadequate supply of spare parts for those buses, which make the bus service in Thurrock both totally inadequate and extremely expensive?

Mr. Horam: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that the central problem is not the level of interest rate charged in the case of the National Bus Company. The loan charge has been exceptionally low—roughly 4 per cent.—so the London Country Bus Service started with that unique advantage. I think that the problem is more to do with the nature of the system and the inheritance of the buses and maintenance workshops.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: May we take it from the Minister's last reply but one


that he will consider sympathetically the difficulties in peripheral areas, such as Epping Forest, where elderly people without cars have no alternative form of transport?

Mr. Horam: Indeed, that is precisely my point. We have a special relationship with the National Bus Company that ensures that we get accurate and up-to-date information on its services operating through the London Country Bus Service. We shall continue to monitor the situation carefuly.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that adequacy in respect of bus services cannot be measured by the number of buses on the road or, I am told, even by lost miles, as London Transport persists in doing? Does he agree that it must be seen from the point of view of the adequacy of the interval of service as seen by the passenger? The London boroughs of Newham and Hammersmith have pioneered measurement in that regard, and London Transport has not yet done that. Is it not about time that London Transport implemented this realistic method of quality measurement?

Mr. Horam: I know that my hon. Friend studies these matters very carefully. I am sure that he will be aware that London Transport has recently brought forward a scheme to reduce the irregularity and infrequency of bus services. I believe that it is spending as much as £4·7 million on this. I mentioned in an earlier reply that London Transport is well aware of the situation about which my hon. Friend is talking.

Roads (London)

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Transport, in view of the fact that Greater London's major road system is of national concern, if he will take steps to fund it on a national basis.

Mr. William Rodgers: No, Sir. London's trunk roads are already financed entirely by central Government. I would like to see a greater rather than a smaller involvement of local opinion in London's roads.

Mr. Townsend: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that London is unique among major Western cities in having no satisfactory inner orbital system, and

that the absence of a strategic road network in London is greatly damaging to the national road network? Cannot the Government do more to help the GLC, which is no position to give sufficient funds?

Mr. Rodgers: Generally, in my experience, local government likes to make decisions that are essentially local. The GLC is elected by the citizens of London for that precise purpose. I recognise that very few local authorities can do all that they want to at present in road building. It is a question of priorities. However, combined with effective traffic management, a great deal can be done.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Why has the Minister not yet made the A2, which runs through my constituency, part of the trunk route? The A2, or the E2 in the European context, leads to the Blackwall Tunnel, which is motorway, and in between there is a three-mile gap which blocks up all the traffic going up the road.

Mr. Rodgers: There is always considerable dialogue between central Government and local government both when we propose to detrunk routes and when we propose to trunk them. But this is not the only factor upon which depends the condition of a road. Certainly, however, I am concerned, as is the GLC, to ensure that London's roads are adequate within the budget available.

Freight

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in furthering the Government's policy of encouraging the maximum transportation of freight by rail, in the light of the dispute at Didcot.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in furthering the Government's policy of encouraging the maximum transportation of freight by rail, in the light of the dispute at Didcot.

Mr. William Rodgers: Reasonable progress, all things considered. As for Didcot, it is unlikely that the dispute will have a significant effect on the volume of rail freight traffic.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Does the Secretary of State realise that that reply is


insufficient for hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does he appreciate that the Didcot centre has been set up now for three years and that during that time it has had only two ill-fated train cargoes of cars from Cowley, which was one of the prime reasons for its being set up in the first place? Does the Minister appreciate that Sid Weighell has described the situation as madness, and that the loss of jobs by British Rail workers in recent years is very unsatisfactory indeed? What does he have to tell the House?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree that the Didcot depot is under-used. [Interruption.] If hon. Members choose to look into this matter, they will find that it is not wholly or even mainly because of this dispute. As for the dispute itself, I totally accept the fact that there is concern on both sides of the House, and I hope very much that the dispute will be resolved. However, it is not basically a reflection on any dispute about road or rail; rather, it is a reflection of the concern felt by many people about the movement away from our ports and to inland depots of one kind or another.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: In view of that reply, will the Minister give instructions to the Transport and General Workers' Union to allow cars to be moved from Cowley to Didcot by train?

Mr. Rodgers: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, my powers do not extend to giving instructions to the Transport and General Workers' Union. [Interruption.]

Mr. Adley: Do not do as I do; do as I say.

Mr. Rodgers: My powers do not extend to giving instructions to anyone else, and I am not proposing to extend them, even if the House would agree to that. But this is a complex and difficult problem. I think that the solution will be found not by my direct intervention but by the good sense of all those involved. I hope that good sense will prevail.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Didcot is not an isolated case? There are many other cases where this has happened. Is he also aware that it is a question not of encouraging rail freight but of attacking

the central principle of the Government's policy, which is freedom of choice? Is not freedom of choice being prevented in this case? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to invest in the latest techniques for British Rail, they need to be used?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend has expressed his views forcibly before and I am glad to hear them, because he reflects a strong body of opinion and concern on both sides of the House. It is only fair to repeat that the Question is concerned with the transportation of freight by rail, and, much as we may find the dispute vexatious or even unpleasant, it does not have a significant effect on the overall question of the amount of freight carried by rail.

Mr. Durant: Could the right hon. Gentleman not take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and at least talk to Jack Jones? I understand that the Government have a close liaison with the trade unions. Why do they not take advantage of it?

Mr. Rodgers: I will talk to anyone, anywhere, at any time, but my concern is to see a solution of the dispute as soon as possible in the most effective way. Although we sometimes assume that our decisions and the acts of Ministers are the best way of solving problems, the longer I remain in office the more I doubt whether that is always the case.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it is helpful to have knowledgeable and learned advice from hon. Members on both sides of the House, the correct way to deal with this matter is to leave it to the parties concerned? I understand that the dispute is subject to discussions between the union leaders concerned and the industry. Should we not leave it at that?

Mr. Rodgers: I know that my hon. Friend wishes to be helpful, and he has made an important point. We should look at this from both sides. Of course the House is right to be concerned. If it were not concerned, it would be neglecting its duty, but, as I have tried to explain, there are means outside the House of solving such disputes, and my hon. Friend has made an important point.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply? Is it not common ground between both sides of the House that we want to see conditions of fair competition in the freight transport industry, and does not action of this kind clearly make such competition impossible? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear undertaking that he will seek to use his influence to reconcile the dispute, and will he do so as a matter of urgency, because that is the wish of both sides of the House?

Mr. Rodgers: It is certainly not the case that a dispute of this sort, however displeasing, makes fair competition between rail and road impossible. Let us get the problem in perspective and see it as a problem of industrial relations. I am available in any way at any time to help find a solution, but I do not believe that my positive intervention now would be the most likely way of getting the outcome that the House wants

Mr. John Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when there are changes in the pattern of working, in whatever area, the people involved, who may believe their livelihoods to be in danger, are likely to react and that exchanges in which hon. Members have been seeking to make an emotive issue of this matter do no good? Is it not better for those directly concerned, as well as for the overall national interest, for the unions to get together to sort things out? Emotive exchanges do not help.

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend puts the matter in a sober perspective. As I have said, it is a symptom of industrial change, which produces dislocation in the lives of many workers, though not primarily in the lives of the rail workers. The dispute has its origins in the problems in our ports.

National Bus Company

Mr. Wakeham: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the Naional Bus Company.

Mr. William Rodgers: It depends when either of us has matters that we wish to discuss together.

Mr. Wakeham: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman, will he discuss the representations that the

chairman may make to the traffic commissioners, who deal with applications by local authorities and private operators to run bus services in rural areas, in order to make sure that his representations are as helpful as they can be?

Mr. Rodgers: I know that there is a problem, particularly in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I am sure that the chairman's concern is that we should have effective public transport services throughout the country, particularly in some of our rural areas and small towns.

Mr. Corbett: If my right hon. Friend wants a subject to discuss with the chairman, will he look at the crazy way in which the London Country Bus Service Ltd has to go to nine or 10 shire counties and the GLC to work out the money which they should pay for sensible bus services in their areas? Has not London Country got a hopeless job when it does not know from one year to the next what level of support it will get from the authorities?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend is right. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, London Country has some special problems, partly because of the nature of the route network, but many bus operators have found themselves in difficulties because councils have not made available to them sums of money in subsidies, some of which had already been promised.

Louth Bypass

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about future plans for the Louth bypass.

Mr. Horam: The next stage will be to consult the public on alternative routes, probably towards the end of this year.

Mr. Brotherton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable differences of opinion in Louth about the proposed routes and on the question whether there is any necessity for the bypass? Can he assure us that a decision will be made swiftly in the interests of all concerned?

Mr. Horam: I am not sure that it will be possible to satisfy everyone, since the hon. Gentleman has brought to my attention clear differences of opinion over the different routes and, indeed, over the


question whether we should have a by-pass. I must take account of such a lack of enthusiasm, but we shall try to make the decision as soon as we can.

Docks

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for nationalising the docks.

Mr. William Rodgers: None in this Session.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite his disappointing replies today, we rely primarily on him to resist the introduction of a measure that would so clearly be damaging to the national interest and primarily in the interests of one trade union?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were made in kindness, but I must warn him and his hon. Friends that they cannot rely on me for anything.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still a need for real public ownership of the docks rather than that they should be administered, as some are at present, by private employers? Does he agree that this action and properly negoiated pay and conditions of work are the best ways of ensuring the future efficient functioning of the docks?

Mr. Rodgers: Fortunately, about 80 per cent. of our ports are publicly owned or run by statutory undertakings of one kind or another. I agree that our objective must be to have an efficient ports industry, serving the nation. We have to find the best means of achieving that.

Mr. Luce: I represent a port with a remarkable record in terms of the expansion of trade in the past decade, thanks largely to the dockers and the management in that area. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sword of Damocles of nationalisation which hangs over the port mars its future? Will he therefore make a fundamental commitment that there will be no threat of nationalisation in future?

Mr. Rodgers: If the sword of Damocles mars the future of the hon. Gentleman's port, it is surprising that it

has had such a prosperous recent past—because the thought that the ports might be nationalised is not new. I hope that his port, under whatever ownership, will continue to prosper.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for the nationalisation of the docks on the ground that the British Transport Docks Board has a remarkable record of productivity in recent years, during a time of great difficulty?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The record of the Board is without equal. I am glad to pay tribute to it and, in this way, to public ownership in the ports industry.

Mr. Fry: Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean and admit that Labour's 1976 programme, which contains many proposals for nationalisation and increased State interference, has never been reversed? Can he give any sound reasons for the docks being nationalised?

Mr. Rodgers: I could give the House many sound reasons, but not this afternoon.

Metrication

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Transport with whom he intends to consult regarding his planned changeover from miles to kilometres.

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Transport with whom he intends to consult regarding his planned changeover from miles to kilometres.

Mr. William Rodgers: A wide range of representative organisations, but not yet.

Mr. Neubert: Will the Secretary of State ensure that in any consultations that he undertakes on this subject he gives the greatest emphasis to the general public, and not only to the technical interests involved? Does he appreciate that most people would regard an avoidable change from miles to kilometres as senseless, extremely wasteful, and unlikely to improve the popular appeal of the Common Market?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman probably broadly reflects the views of the majority. However, I should say that


there are two points of view, and many people are reasonably relaxed about the idea of going metric one day.

Mr. Moate: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is no obligation under the Treaty of Rome and recent directives to change from miles to kilometres? Will he stop equivocating and giving ambivalent answers? Surely the country is entitled to a clear and straightforward statement about the long-term intention—about whether we are to change or whether we are not. May I suggest that we do not change, because the people do not want it?

Mr. Rodgers: I have made clear to the House that in the first place there is no likelihood of change before the second half of the 1980s. Secondly, I have no intention of starting the process of consultation in the near future. I think that is an adequate reply. These are matters that the House may wish to discuss from time to time. There is no obligation upon the Government. We must see how we go after the consultation process has been completed.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not the height of hypocrisy for Tories to table Questions about the transformation from miles to kilometres when that is being advocated by those who took part in the shameful campaign to drag Britain into the Common Market? Is it not hypocrisy for them to put Questions to a Minister who at the time of the campaign was as bad as they were? If they really mean business, why did they march through the Lobby with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the rest of the Treasury Bench, or almost all of it, last Thursday to guillotine the European Assembly Elections Bill and to put £30,000 into the pockets of the prospective Members of the European Parliament? That is where the action should be taken.

Mr. Rodgers: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend is getting excited, because this is a matter upon which he feels deeply. However, I am in no great haste to move in this direction. It is not my first priority, and I suggest to the House that it need not worry too much.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no EEC obligation on us to scrap the mile? As my hon. Friend the Member for

Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, as no one wants to scrap the mile, cannot we simply resolve the issue by saying that we will not scrap it? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say that?

Mr. Rodgers: There are matters that we all carry out without obligation because we think that they make the best sense. It is true that we have no obligation beyond our obligation to adopt the metric system. I think that the House should be relaxed on this issue. Of course, I should welcome a debate in the House on the whole matter whenever the House itself might choose.

Roads (Maintenance)

Mr. Eyre: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the present standards of road maintenance.

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the present standards of road maintenance.

Mr. Horam: I believe that the present standards of maintenance on motorways and trunk roads are reasonable, given limited resources. As regards other roads, we have since 1976 been surveying their condition annually in collaboration with local authorities and will watch the situation with care.

Mr. Eyre: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that badly maintained and dangerous roads are one of the worst aspects of the environment, especially in industrial areas? To its credit, the West Midlands has been trying to do something about that, but what is the Minister's attitude towards it and what can he do to help?

Mr. Horam: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's point, especially in terms of the problems that have arisen both on country roads and on motorways in the Midlands generally. As I said, we are trying to maintain the level of spending on road maintenance as a whole. Spending has declined in recent years, but it has now, I think, bottomed out. We are also trying to ensure that we properly monitor what is going on. The annual surveys of the condition of roads are a most important innovation.

Mr. Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory's finding that 28 per cent. of accidents are caused by road defects? Will he give us an assurance that the monitoring will apply to local authority roads as well? If an increase in the number of accidents is shown as a result of cut-backs in maintenance spending, will he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the formula for the rate support grant?

Mr. Horam: The surveys will cover local authority roads as well as motorways and trunk roads. About £377 million is being spent annually on road maintenance on local authority roads alone, at November 1976 prices. There is a considerable effort being made in this direction, but we need to watch the situation and I shall ensure that it is watched.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the roads in Merseyside are still not as good as they used to be, and will he point out to Conservative Members that one of the reasons for that is the cuts in public expenditure, which they fully supported? Indeed, it was argued that the Government were not going far enough.

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend is right. Opposition Members clamoured for public expenditure cuts while at the same time clamouring for good road maintenance. My right hon. Friend and I are concerned to ensure that there is reasonable maintenance of roads and that public transport is not neglected.

M40 (Leitch Report Recommendation)

Mr. Cowans: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will implement recommendation 59 of the Leitch Report as it relates to the proposed M40 scheme.

Mr. William Rodgers: I did not overlook recommendation 59 in reaching the decision that I announced last week.

Mr. Cowans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are already two existing excellent rail links between London and Birmingham, whose facilities the new road will merely duplicate? Further, is he aware that British Rail has stated that there is ample capacity on both routes for the carriage of passengers and

freight? Is it not a fact that no effort has been made to consider the real alternatives, in spite of the Government's policy and in spite of the Leitch Committee's recommendations?

Mr. Rodgers: No, my hon. Friend is wrong, although I totally understand his concern, which I share, about making the best use of our railway system. We took full account of the consequences of a new road for existing railways, but there is a real environmental problem for many villages and communities in the area. Without building a new road we would not be able to help them in solving the problems that they currently face.

Mr. Marten: As the M40 runs through and benefits my constituency, will the Secretary of State invite the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) to his next Press conference to explain to him the facts of life?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) is fully aware of the need for roads in many circumstances, but he is right to draw my attention to the need to scrutinise the alternative of rail. However, in the circumstances I am satisfied that the proposals that we make will help not only those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) but many others.

Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in future he will follow the recommendations of the Leitch Report in all his decisions about new road schemes?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot confirm that at this stage, in precisely the words that my right hon. Friend has used. I welcome the Leitch Report. The decisions that we are currently making are made in the light of the report. I have accepted the recommendation to set up a standing advisory committee, and all the other recommendations will colour my decisions even while we are considering what we ought to do about them.

Trunk Roads

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that trunk road construction contributes to economic growth in the light


of the findings of the Leitch Committee; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: Good communications are relevant to industrial investment, even if they are not decisive, and investment is relevant to growth.

Mr. Cook: Does that mean that my right hon. Friend is rejecting the specific and precise conclusion of the Leitch Committee, and that the argument that new trunk roads may have a significant benefit to the economy of the country, or to the regions, is weak, or at best not proven? Does he accept that that conclusion, together with the revised traffic forecasts provided by the Leitch Committee, makes a compelling case for a comprehensive review of the future road commitments of his Department?

Mr. Rodgers: I am not rejecting what my hon. Friend refers to as the specific and precise conclusions of the committee. However, with respect, my hon. Friend is jumping from the specific and precise conclusions to something rather more. The House has generally accepted that the evidence is strong that good communications are relevant to industrial investment, which means jobs and growth. We have to ensure that our decisions take account of the extent to which that should not be the decisive factor in the decisions that we are taking.

Mr. Forman: Will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that, in the light of the sensible and widely welcomed recommendations in the Leitch Report, there will be no danger of a repeat of the kind of muddle and delay that has been caused to many of my constituents over the decision on the M23 north of Hooley? Will he now announce a firm decision on that matter?

Mr. Rodgers: I certainly cannot make any announcement in the House today. The Leitch Report, which I greatly welcome, will contribute towards wiser decisions than have been made in the past. I should make it clear that the more complicated the decisions, the longer the process may be. That is one of the consequences of the kind of public consultation that is widely welcomed today.

AIRPORTS POLICY

3.31 p.m.

The Secretary of Stale for Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on airports policy.
The White Paper "Airports Policy" is published this afternoon. Its main objective is to establish a framework within which airport developments throughout Great Britain should be considered. It assesses the future demand for airport capacity and how this might be met during the period to 1990 and outlines the airport options to be considered for the longer term. The White Paper also considers the noise and other environmental effects of airport development.
Forecasting the future demand for air transport is inherently uncertain How ever, the forecasts suggest that airport capacity presents a problem only in the South-East. In the London area the range is from 66 million to 89 million passengers a year in 1990, with the most probable outturn in the lower half of the range, compared with 31 million passengers in 1976.
Our policy for the London area envisages the provision of a fourth terminal at Heathrow, which is to be the subject of a public inquiry later this year, but the rejection of a fifth terminal; the construction of a second terminal at Gatwick, subject likewise to planning procedures, but the rejection of a second runway; improvements to the terminal at Luton to increase capacity to 5 million passengers a year, but no development beyond that point; and additional terminal facilities to cater for 4 million passengers at Stansted.
Elsewhere, I believe that our efforts to shift the balance away from the South-East will be assisted by a policy of concentration which should make it more economic for airlines to provide services away from the South-East and make it more attractive for passengers to use them. The White Paper identifies Manchester as the major international airport outside the South-East. It identifies Newcastle, Leeds-Bradford, East Midlands, Birmingham and Cardiff as principal


regional airports. Other airports will continue to cater for local needs and to meet the demand for general aviation.
In Scotland the Government's devolution proposals place responsibility for airports on the Scottish Assembly. Decisions in respect of these airports will be left to the Assembly.
Environmental considerations, including especially aircraft noise, are a vital factor in the development of airports policy. The White Paper announces two decisions about subsonic jet aircraft which do not meet the requirements for noise certification. United Kingdom operators will not be allowed to use newly acquired aircraft of this type after 30th September this year. All such aircraft on the United Kingdom register will be banned from 1st January 1986. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will emphasise to local authorities the need to avoid the building of houses in those locations experiencing most noise. He will also be proposing modifications to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order designed to bring major developments at British Airports Authority airports within the normal planning controls.
For the longer term, additional capacity will almost certainly be required for the London area, but no decisions have been taken on how this might be provided.
The options include a new airport and major development of Stansted beyond the 4 million passenger capacity indicated in the White Paper or the conversion of a military airfield to a civil airport. It is proposed that all three options should be examined within an appropriate formal structure which will be discussed with the local authority associations.
I believe that the White Paper provides a sound framework for the future development of our airports. Of course, we are dealing with a fast-moving industry, and the Government will continue to develop the policy in consultation with those concerned.

Mr. Nott: Is the Secretary of State aware that we have had up to two years now to consider the consultative documents instead of the six months that was originally intended and less than an hour in which to read the resulting White Paper? It seems to us, at a very first

reading, to be nothing more than a restatement of the consultative documents. As the White Paper takes us into the 1990s, I think that we need rather more than an hour to give a considered judgment on it.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our first impression is that the proposals may suffice to meet traffic demands until about 1984–85, but that the White Paper begs the major issue of what happens beyond that date when the problems of accommodating international traffic will begin to tell? Once again, it looks as if the major decision will fall to us.

Mr. Dell: I understand perfectly the hon. Gentleman's wish to have time to study the White Paper. His main point is that the White Paper begs decisions after 1984–85. I emphasise that the White Paper takes the situation up to 1990. It is not sensible that, in the light of the rapidly changing forecasts in a downward direction that we have seen over the past few years on the amount of traffic that is likely to be generated to the South-East, we should commit ourselves to vast public expenditure before it is necessary. According to our estimates and judgment, the decisions taken here suffice up to 1990. Certainly further decisions will have to be taken beyond that time, but it is better that they be taken in the light of firmer information regarding traffic trends.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call anyone at all, I remind the House that there is another major statement, two applications under Standing Order No. 9 and a Ten-Minute Bill before we get to the business that is controlled by a timetable motion.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend agree to look again at the proposals for a fourth terminal at Heathrow? Will he further agree, after a suitable lapse of time for the White Paper to be digested, to listen to representations from local opinion, which is very hostile at the moment?

Mr. Dell: The proposed fourth terminal at Heathrow is the subject of a planning inquiry. Subject to that, I must emphasise the necessity for the fourth terminal. However, we reject a fifth terminal. I think that that will be of some


comfort to the public opinion to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Pardoe: Does the Secretary of State accept that the consultation process started with a major part of the purpose being to shift the balance of traffic away from the South-East to the regions and that the White Paper indicates that that purpose has not been achieved? Will he confirm that the proportion of total traffic coming to the South-East in 1990 on present forecasts will be about the same as it is now and that, if so, and no further shift is made, all the options beyond 1990 will be deeply unattractive?

Mr. Dell: It is certainly true that we are assuming that there will be the same balance between the South-East and the rest of the country in 1990 as there is now. To that extent we have certainly not succeeded in finding ways of achieving major shifts of traffic away from the South-East. However, it is our judgment—this is argued in the White Paper—that the best hope of developing traffic outside the South-East, and therefore enabling people to travel from airports outside the South East, is to concentrate development on a number of specific areas. The White Paper declares those decisions. In that way we maximise the hope of increasing the amount of traffic outside the South-East, but I do not pretend that that will be an easy achievement.

Mr. Ifor Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his references to Cardiff Airport will be well received throughout Wales? Will he continue to give consideration to the services that are available at Swansea Airport, which is in a key position?

Mr. Dell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about Cardiff. I am sure that many people will welcome these decisions. I emphasise the importance of the principle of a concentration of services. That does not mean that other airports will not serve important local needs and have expanding traffic.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does the Secretary of State accept that there will be a general welcome of his desire to shift the emphasis from the South-East to the regions? Is he further aware that the people of Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire cannot under

take to accept, let alone support, his decision of a 4 million expansion at Stansted or a 5 million expansion at Luton? For the long term, may I respectfully invite the Secretary of State to eliminate Stansted from his options and to read and read again the authoritative and convincing minority judgment report of Professor Sir Colin Buchanan in the Roskill Report?

Mr. Dell: That was certainly an eloquent minority report. Although an expansion to a capacity of 5 million is projected for Luton, the White Paper states that that is the limit. In those terms it is likely to be acceptable to many people in that area. It is sensible to use the resources at Stansted. I believe that that is the view of the South-East Economic Planning Council as well as of others. Developments beyond that point are in no way foreclosed by my statement today. There are other options which will be seriously considered.

Mr. Palmer: Can my right hon. Friend say why Bristol Lulsgate is treated so shabbily? After all, it is the Bristol Channel and not the Cardiff Channel.

Mr. Dell: I do not think that my hon. Friend is right to say that Bristol Lulsgate is treated shabbily. There will be an expansion of passenger capacity at Bristol, but Cardiff has better facilities and there were certain objections about noise in the Bristol area. I should have been delighted to come to the House with a statement which chose all the available airports for maximum development. But if we are to have a sensible airports policy, choices have to be made.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be great satisfaction in the Highlands and Islands airports and the regions around them that the proposal to transfer administration to the British Airports Authority has been dropped in favour of the sensible idea of leaving it to the Scottish Assembly? Is he aware that there will be great regret in Scotland that the excellent international airport at Prestwick does not seem to get a look-in? In view of the facilities that exist there, what status does the Secretary of State envisage for Prestwick?

Mr. Dell: When the right hon. Gentleman has had time to read the White


Paper he will find that decisions about the future of the Prestwick, Glasgow and Edinburgh complexes are left to the Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Has not my right hon. Friend abrogated his responsibility for Scottish airports? Is he saying that essential development, particularly of Aberdeen, which is the fastest-growing airport in Scotland, is to be left until after the setting up of an Assembly? Does he not realise that there will be complaints that he should be acting now, because airports are his responsibility until devolution takes place?

Mr. Dell: I am not ignoring my responsibilities. Aberdeen has already been transferred to the British Airports Authority. It is an airport which is in increasing use. There is no question of an abrogation of responsibility. If the House decides to set up a Scottish Assembly, it is sensible that these other decisions relating to the development of Scottish airports and which are outstanding should be made by the body that will have responsibility for these airports under the legislation.

Mr. Tebbit: Am I correct in saying that the decision to limit Heathrow to a four-terminal airport will effectively limit the passenger capacity to about 53 million? Am I correct in assuming that that will make inevitable a rapid development of Gatwick up to its single-runway, twin-terminal capacity of 25 million but that beyond there for future development in the 1990s—which is only 12 years away—there is only one option—a new airport which could not be ready in time, or the substantial expansion of Stansted beyond the 4 million mark? Has not the Secretary of State chosen London's fourth airport in this White Paper, and is it not Stansted?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has obviously not had time to look at the White Paper. The fourth terminal limits the capacity at Heathrow to 38 million, not 50 million. It is true that a second terminal at Gatwick, which will raise its capacity to 25 million, will he needed. Beyond that the White Paper states three options—a major development at Stansted beyond the 4 million capacity, a new airport, or the conversion of a military airport.

The hon. Member says that an entirely new airport would be ruled out by the time factor. We do not accept that. In any case there is the other option of converting an existing military airport.
If the hon. Member looks at the forecast for air travel in the London area, starting with Roskill down to the forecasts in this White Paper, and considers the changes in economic circumstances and fuel prices since Roskill, he will be by no means persuaded that the forecasts are of a kind which should commit any Government to development anywhere in the London area by way of a new airport or by a major development at Stansted or anywhere else. At this time that would be an unwise commitment in the light of the information at hand.

Mr. Clemitson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any suggestion that the ownership of Luton Airport should be transferred to the British Airports Authority would be fiercely resisted by the local council, all political parties and myself? May we have an assurance that there will be no such transfer of ownership in opposition to the wishes of the local authority?

Mr. Dell: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am against compulsion in this respect. The White Paper makes perfectly clear that any such transfer would take place with the voluntary agreement of the local authority concerned. That also applies to other airports which are not in the possession of the BAA.
I remind my hon. Friend that the Government are limiting their financial commitment. We are saying that beyond existing commitments—for example at Birmingham—in only exceptional circumstances will the taxpayer he asked to make a contribution to the development of airports.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is not this a case of government by stealth? Is it not likely that if the limits are accepted, the Secretary of State's successor will come to the House and say that the most reasonable thing for the 1990s is to breach the limits set in this White Paper?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Member can interpret it in any way he likes, but the point is that it would not be sensible in the light of current forecasts to make now


the sort of decision he seems to think ought to have made. It is better to make that sort of decision on the basis of firm information, and I invite him to do what I invited his hon. Friend to do. He should look at the changing forecasts over the years and then consider whether he would commit himself to the sort of major development of which he is thinking.

Mr. Heffer: Since the White Paper speaks in paragraph 113 of Manchester being faced with a difficulty over the runway and of Liverpool airport having a very good runway, and since at the same time it is predicted that Manchester will have between 2·5 million and 6 million passengers while Liverpool Airport will have only 1 million, is it not disappointing that Liverpool has not received greater support in the White Paper? Will he take another look at the proposals to improve Liverpool's position?

Mr. Dell: There will be expansion at Liverpool as a local airport. One cannot escape the fact, however, that Manchester has chosen itself as the major international airport in that part of England over a period of years. It is from there that the major international services have developed. I do not think that anyone on Merseyside—and my hon. Friend will know that it is a subject in which I am interested—should ignore the fact that it is a major advantage to the area to have this international airport so close to it and linked by motorway.

Mr. Steen: Is the Minister not ashamed, as a Merseyside Member, of downgrading Speke Airport to C category? Why was it not made a B category airport?

Mr. Dell: The answer is that one has to make choices. One makes the most sensible choices one can, and in this case Manchester was the obvious choice. I do not believe that more balanced people on Merseyside—I recognise the hon. Member's long fight to have Speke graded as a category B airport—will think that the decision I have made is unreasonable.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister accept that the decision he has announced on Luton and Stansted represents a double kick in the teeth to the people of Hertfordshire, especially those in my constituency who live under the flight path

from Luton? As his White Paper acknowledges that Luton Airport has the largest number of night flights of any airport in the kingdom, will he toughen up the statement of intent rapidly to reduce the number of night flights from Luton? Did he not consider using the stick on the charter operators who bring in the largest number of such passengers arriving in the South-East, to compel them, if they will not do it voluntarily, to make better and fuller use of regional airports, as much to help local industry as to spread tourism?

Mr. Dell: I shall be disappointed if my hon. Friend's views turned out to be those of the majority of the people in that locality. Decisions restricting the development of 5 million at Luton will be very well understood.
As for night flights, the White Paper makes an announcement about phasing out noisy aircraft at night. In addition, I have announced in the White Paper a major decision on aircraft noise relating to the phasing out of non-certificated aircraft after 1st January 1986. The general noise picture for the country as a result of these decisions will substantially improve over the next few years, and certainly by 1990.

Sir W. Elliott: Will the Secretary of State accept that the selection of Newcastle as an airport which can considerably, in its future development, ease the strain on the South-East of the country is most welcome and sensible? Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the considerable representations made to him on the urgency of the development of the terminal building and runways there?

Mr. Dell: The terminal building is a matter for the airport authority. As for the runway, although I have to give loan sanction, the hon. Gentleman should remember what I said about Government finance. However, I note his welcome for the selection of Newcastle and I understand why he welcomes it.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question to which the answer is either "Yes" or "No"? Was the technical advice of the Civil Aviation Authority in favour of hiving off responsibility for the Scottish airports to the Assembly?

Mr. Dell: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend a "Yes" or "No"


answer. I do not know what the technical advice was. The decision was a political one.

Sir G. Sinclair: Is the Secretary of State aware that his forecast that passenger traffic at Gatwick will be multiplied by four by 1990 will cause grave anxiety in my constituency? Will the right hon. Gentleman promise far more stringent measures to try to divert traffic to the regional airports and at the same time make a far more robust attack on the increasing aircraft noise that is bound to spread all over my constituency? Does he accept that the expansion of Gatwick to this figure will mean the urbanisation of that part of the green belt and a complete urban sprawl from Croydon down to the coast?

Mr. Dell: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about Gatwick and the concern of the people in the area. Undoubtedly these decisions will have an adverse effect on noise at Gatwick in the short term. However, as a result of the other decisions—in the White Paper and elsewhere—we are making about noise, the noise position at Gatwick should certainly be improved by 1990. I recognise that that is a long time off, but the development of Gatwick has to be an element in this programme. However, Gatwick also has the assurance of a limit on development there, imposed by one runway and two terminals.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Why were the recommendations of the Stratford Report regarding Teesside Airport rejected? Is my right hon. Friend aware that people in South Durham, North Yorkshire and Cleveland will be very disappointed by this decision? Will he tell those people what the White Paper means when it talks about Teesside and the South Durham area being significantly closer to London than Newcastle?

Mr. Dell: I was advised by one of my right hon. Friends that Teesside is closer to London than is Newcastle. If my hon. Friend looks at the map, he will find that to be true. This is, again, a matter of choice. We do not agree with the Stratford Committee, which avoided the choice. It is more sensible in the light of facilities available and of the developments that have taken place so far, and given the presence of British Airways at

Newcastle, to select Newcastle for this purpose.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Having gone so far with regard to Cardiff Airport, will not the Secretary of State now agree to upgrade that airport from a regional airport to the national Welsh airport and to ensure that Government investment, which has been lacking in the past, is available to meet that status?

Mr. Dell: Control of Cardiff Airport is also to be devolved under the legislation that is before the House. It may be, therefore, that that choice will lie elsewhere in any case. The question of what an airport is named is not significant. The significant factor is the services that use it. We expect growth at Cardiff, but not the sort of growth that the right hon. Gentleman seems to have in mind.

Mr. Terry Walker: Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that the White Paper will be received with great concern in the city of Bristol, where Lulsgate Airport is being seriously downgraded while Cardiff is being upgraded? Is it not time that we considered building a regional airport at Severnside, in view of the road and rail links that meet at Bristol?
Finally, will the new airport at Cardiff come under the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Dell: The answer to the last question is "Yes".
I do not think that there is a justification for further airport development at Severnside. I think that Cardiff Airport has the facilities required for a regional airport for that area. My hon. Friend should not ignore the fact that nothing that is said in the White Paper will prevent further developments at Bristol, which is an important commercial centre. On the contrary, the anticipation is that there will be an increase in traffic at Bristol over the period from now until 1950.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will call three more hon. Members from each side. Mr. Monro.

Mr. Monro: Will the Secretary of State appreciate that those in the third-force airlines and general aviation will welcome his decision concerning the airports in


Scotland which are not under the British Airports Authority? Will he make every effort to retain those airports under the control of the CAA, and, further, make every effort to encourage the smaller airlines in Scotland, whose value for communications is tremendous?

Mr. Dell: The airlines are not the subject of the White Paper. As for my encouraging the Scottish Assembly to leave these airports with the CAA, I think that this is a matter which the Scottish Assembly, when it is set up, should consider rather carefully. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find, if he examines the matter, that there are strong arguments the other way.

Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the suggestion that a major expansion of Stansted to a capacity of 16 million passengers per annum is one of the options to meet long-term demand will be widely regarded not only as utterly wrong on planning, environmental and noise grounds, but as a travesty of democracy, in view of the extensive examination and the Roskill Commission, which took many years in going over this issue?
In these circumstances, does not my right hon. Friend realise that those of us who support an expansion of the passenger throughput of Stansted to 4 million per year cannot possibly continue their support unless an absolute and fixed ceiling is placed on that development thereafter?

Mr. Dell: I know my hon. Friend's views on this, because I read what he said during the debate that we had on this matter. The decision in the White Paper is for a capacity of 4 million at Stansted. There is no decision for further expansion to 16 million. Certain options are stated for development beyond 1990, and I cannot add to what I have said in that respect.

Mr. Paul Dean: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I welcome his conclusion that Bristol Airport should not be used as overspill for the South-East? This would have meant intolerable disturbance to the growing residential area around Bristol Airport. But, equally, will he give an assurance that Bristol Airport will not be denied adequate resources to maintain an efficient local service?

Mr. Dell: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has referred to the disturbance at Bristol, which was one of the factors which had to be taken into account in making the choice that I have announced today.
As for the availability of resources, I remind the hon. Gentleman of the decision to which I have already referred—that, apart from existing commitments, it will only be in wholly exceptional circumstances that the taxpayer will be asked to pay for local authority airport development. Bristol, together with other local authority airports, should bear that in mind.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of his hon. Friends believe that the cost of the provision, maintenance and security of provincial airports should be met from central funds?

Mr. Dell: I note my hon. Friend's view. We have decided against that view, I think rightly. I think that the cost of air travel should be met by the air traveller.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on grounds of noise and safety, many of us still believe that the best place for our main national airport would be a coastal site where the aircraft do not need to fly over people's homes?
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a military airport. Will he say whether he has in mind Lakenheath or Mildenhall? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there will be very great resistance in East Anglia concerning Stansted?
Whatever decision the right hon. Gentleman reaches, will he make it quickly? It is a national scandal that our biggest airport, Heathrow, is still regarded as an aviation slum and as a place where the concrete never sets?

Mr. Dell: As to Heathrow, the decision on the fourth terminal must await the planning inquiry. The decision I have announced here is that there will be no fifth terminal.
There are many military airports but I shall not select any for special examination today. Local authorities have put to us that we should examine the availability


of military airports. We shall do this as part of the formal structure to which I have referred today.
There are very few matters in airport policy about which one can be absolutely sure, but I am absolutely sure that it was right to cancel Maplin. The effect of the White Paper, and the decisions made in it, is that we shall be providing, at a cost of £150 million, capacity which, in the first phase of Maplin, together with the necessary road works, would have cost about £1 billion. The difference between those figures speaks for itself.

Mr. James Lamond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision to make Manchester Airport a gateway international airport will be very warmly welcomed in the area, as it recognises the importance of the North-West region and also the excellent work carried out by the Manchester International Airport Authority in developing, improving and extending the facilities at Manchester Airport?
Will the designation of Manchester, as one of the only two gateway international airports outside the South-East region, be regarded as a wholly exceptional circumstance, which will mean that taxpayers' money will be available to assist with the cost of improving the standards still further, so that they may meet the new requirement?

Mr. Dell: Manchester must for the moment be satisfied with the decisions that I have made today. It should not imagine that I shall alter the statement of financial policy made today. Only in wholly exceptional circumstances will taxpayers' money be available.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The Front Bench, to conclude.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that Scottish Members are fed up with being told repeatedly that important decisions affecting Scotland will have to be made by an Assembly which may never be established? Does he think that it would make sense to have a separate Scottish airport strategy? Does he think that it makes sense, in relation to having an integrated transport policy, to devolve Scottish air

ports but not to devolve Scottish railways?

Mr. Dell: It is certainly true that it is inconceivable that there should be a Scottish airport strategy separate and different from that of the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is obviously impossible to ignore the fact that airport strategy within the rest of Great Britain has significantly influenced airport development in Scotland.

Mr. Madel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I realise your difficulty when you have a huge list of people with constituency interests in a matter such as this, but as the Leader of the House is in his place, may I, through you, ask him to organise an early debate on the White Paper? He will be announcing the business tomorrow—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sorry that a number of hon. Members were not called, but I have to be fair to the House. There is another statement yet to be made, and those who are interested in the business covered by the timetable motion, as the whole House is, may also complain later. As it is, that business will not start until 5 p.m.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUN- CIL OF FISHERIES MINISTERS)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I beg leave to make a statement about meetings in Brussels of the Council of Ministers on 30th and 31st January on agriculture and fisheries, at which I represented the United Kingdom.
At the beginning of the Fisheries Council on 30th January I raised the question of the devaluation of the green pound which had been blocked by three delegations the previous day. Accordingly, the Danish President called a special meeting of the Agriculture Council for 31st January.
In the Agriculture Council the German delegation confirmed that it did not wish to make a link between the devaluation of the green pound and the fisheries negotiations. However, the German, Netherlands and Belgian delegations explained that they saw some connection between


the devaluation and the negotiations on common price levels for 1978–79. I explained the United Kingdom attitude to the negotiations on farm prices in terms identical to those I have used on many occasions in this House.
Eventually it was agreed that the green pound should be devalued by 7½ per cent., according to the following timetable; for beef and pigmeat, a devaluation of 5 per cent. on 2nd February; the additional 2½ per cent. for these commodities and 7½ per cent. for milk and milk products to take effect when the Council's decision on prices and other measures for 1978–79 enters into effect; for all other commodities, the full 7½ per cent. to take effect at the beginning of the marketing year for each commodity.
I regard this as a very satisfactory outcome. It implements the decision of this House to seek a devaluation of 7½ per cent. It gives substantial immediate help to the pig and beef sectors, which need it, and it defers the adverse effects on consumers of a devaluation for as long as possible. I estimate that the saving to British consumers as a result of the Council decision, by comparison with an immediate across-the-board devaluation, amounts to some £50 million over the next six months—or about £3 on average for every family.
In the Fisheries Council agreement was reached authorising the Commission to continue negotiations with third countries on fishing opportunities for 1978.
There was less progress in discussions on the internal regime, and none of the major issues was resolved. It was clear early in the meeting that agreement on a definitive common fisheries policy would not be possible, and accordingly attention was focused on the arrangements to apply in the meantime.
The Council was unable to agree to a United Kingdom proposal that the existing standstill arrangements should be continued for a further short period. For my part, I could not agree to an alternative proposal to adopt, on a provisional basis, the Commission's latest proposals on quotas, conservation and enforcement, which would have left aside the basic issue of coastal preference and other important issues. I maintained the Government's position that the elements of the

common fisheries policy need to be considered as a whole and not adopted piecemeal.
In the absence of agreement, the Community's so-called standstill arrangement lapsed at midnight last night. Other member States declared their intention to observe, for the time being, the Commission's proposal on quotas and conservation. I made clear the Government's intention to take action in accordance with agreed procedures to maintain existing conservation measures. Our right to take further appropriate unilateral conservation measures is, of course, unimpaired.
I also made clear the Government's intention to continue to work for a settlement which would meet the United Kingdom's essential requirements.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that he said in the House on 23rd January that he accepted the decision of the House. Why, then, did he not insist on its being carried out in full in the Council of Ministers, at least for all livestock products, as he must be aware that postponement of action on dairy products in particular is an invitation for a further large quantity of totally unwanted imports of butter?
Secondly, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that this indicates a likelihood that when future proposals for a devaluation of green currencies are made, if they come from this country, they will be singled out for specially adverse treatment?
Lastly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we wholly support the stand he has taken on fisheries, although I rather regret that he did not take our advice and attend Friday's meeting in Berlin, because doing so might have avoided his being faced with a fait accompli?

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Hypocrisy.

Mr. Peyton: The Minister spoke of the Government's right to take further action being unimpaired. Will he take an early opportunity to indicate to the House what further actions he has in mind?

Mr. Silkin: It may be for the convenience of the House if I deal first with


those questions that concern fisheries. Of course I shall keep the House fully informed. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any desire at any time not to keep the House informed on this and all other matters.
I would have expected the whole House to be with me on the question of Friday's meeting in Berlin. It is not simply a matter of meetings being deferred for a few days. From that point of view we got to exactly the same points. It was a question of what I considered to be—I think that the whole House is with me, including, I hope, the right hon. Gentleman—an attempt to force upon the United Kingdom issues which the United Kingdom had every right to consider at its leisure. It was for that reason that I did not go to Berlin.
I turn now to the green pound questions. First, the right hon. Gentleman has it slightly wrong. The House decided, and the Government accepted, that there should be a 7½ per cent. devaluation. In the winding-up speceh from the Opposition Front Bench the Conservatives asked that that should be immediate for all commodities. I have had a look at the various motions. The right hon. Gentleman might re-read them. The Government amendment, the Conservative motion, the Liberal Early Day Motion—all of them—singled out the livestock sector and in particular beef and pig-meat. How the right hon. Gentleman thinks one benefits the beef and pigmeat sector by increasing the cereal price I do not know. Obviously, it had to be staggered.
On an objective economic basis—and that was all: the question of the cost to the consumer and the industry's need—the Commission said over and over again during the discussions that the right figure was not 7½ per cent. but 5 per cent.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman must try to answer my questions. He must also try to be fair. I told him last Thursday that we did not object to his phasing where cereals were concerned. What I am now asking him is this: does he not think it very undesirable to have avoided action for a matter of months on dairy products, because there will be a further large increase in imports of butter, and they are not wanted here?

Mr. Silkin: I shall try to be fair. If the right hon. Gentleman is concentrating on the dairy sector, I must tell him that that was not the sector—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the dairy sector specifically and therefore I must deal with it. The fact is that we are dealing with a sector in which output is at a record level, the highest in our history. It is not in urgent need, and it never was. It remains capable of looking after itself.
I agree that large amounts of butter will be coming into this country. That was bound to happen. There is a great deal of butter in this country at present. But we must also weigh the fact that the consumer will benefit from that, and the producer will receive his 1½ per cent. deferred devaluation from last year, to which the right hon. Gentleman did not object at all at the time. The producer will receive that on 1st April, and he will receive 7½ per cent. on 1st April or 1st May, whenever the price negotiations finish. He will receive a 9 per cent. increase in price, and I think that that is worth waiting for.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his words about the Government's intention to take further appropriate unilateral conservation measures if needed ring like music in the ears of fishermen and all of those hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies? Is he further aware that if he does not go beyond that, if he does not take unilateral action on behalf of the deep sea fishing fleet to reach agreements with States such as Norway and the Soviet Union, we shall have a disaster? Does my right hon. Friend realise that this is the view of my constituents in Hull and the view on Humberside generally? We feel this way about the future of the deep sea fishing industry.

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Dealing with this question of fishing in third country waters and reciprocal arrangements, particularly with Norway, it was with this in mind that I suggested, and the Council agreed, that we should allow the Commission to continue the discussions and negotiations with third countries. It is important that third countries should not be involved in our internal struggles in the Community but that the reciprocal


discussions should be continued. I hope that the discussions will bear fruit very soon.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the devaluation of the green pound will certainly be welcomed by beef and pig producers, although no doubt they will look for more? Is not the situation in the fishing industry extremely serious? Is it not the case that there seems to be no progress being made and no likelihood of making progress? While we totally support the right hon. Gentleman's stand and believe that no agreement is better than a bad agreement, may we ask him to tell us whether there is any prospect of reaching an agreement? If there is not, has he any date in mind for the taking of unilateral action?

Mr. Silkin: I have already stated the position on conservation measures, and they are the most likely measures to be considered. I intend to have discussions with the industry about how it might practise self-discipline—as has happened with mackerel fishing—in the next few months in particular. It is obviously too early for the right hon. Gentleman to know this, but it is worth considering what progress has been made. If he looks at what the other eight countries have agreed to do—I hope that they will carry out that agreement among themselves—although they do not go far enough, the proposals are a considerable move towards the position of the United Kingdom. The exception is that of quotas, and even those are much larger for the United Kingdom than appeared to be the case a few months ago. I hope that the final moves will take place within a measurable time.

Sir David Renton: In view of the unsatisfactory way in which the MCAs for livestock and the linking with the green pound has worked—and things are still unsatisfactory—may I ask whether the Minister has attempted to renegotiate that method of support for livestock?

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman probably knows that for many months I have tried to renegotiate the calculations for the MCAs. Nor am I alone in doing this. France and Italy have taken the same attitude. It is time that the House fully understood the depth of

vested opposition that there is on this matter from those countries who stand to gain from what I believe, and I think probably most hon. Members believe, to be a totally false method of calculation.

Mr. Torney: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent job he has done in Brussels despite opposition from the rest of the Common Market and the Conservative Party? Can he assure the House that there are no strings attached to the agreement he has made on the green pound which would give support to the new Tory policy of higher food prices in the shops?

Mr. Silkin: In the course of the next few months the full basis of the Conservative Party's policy on dear food should be made known to the whole country. I intend to play my part in seeing that that is done. I can tell my hon. Friend that there are no strings attached to the agreement.

Mr. Peyton: I am very conscious that we shall hear a lot more of this kind of misrepresentation, at which the right hon. Gentleman is particularly skilled. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what I am asking, and what I have asked all along, is why he has failed to take account of the jeopardy in which he has placed the livestock industry as a result of his policies? Does he not feel that that will have a great bearing on the consumers, whom he affects to cherish?

Mr. Silkin: It was precisely to give assistance to the livestock sector—the only part of the farming industry that is in difficulties at the moment—that I suggested a 5 per cent. devaluation which, on an objective economic basis, was the figure the Commission said was correct. It thought that 7½ per cent. was overshooting the mark by quite a bit. Leaving that aside, of course there is an interest here. We do not want to see our market taken over by imported foods.

Mr. Wiggin: We shall remember that.

Mr. Silkin: I have said so on a number of occasions during our debates. What the right hon. Gentleman will have to defend throughout the country is his advocacy of an across-the-board price increase amounting to 6½p in the pound on food prices.

Mr. Watt: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the congratulations of all hon. Members on the nationalist Bench on the excellent stand he has taken in Brussels? Dealing with the fishing issue, may I ask him now to take the one step which the EEC is terrified to take—to extend limits unilaterally to 50 miles so that at least we shall have some fish left for another year? Turning to the green pound, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see to it that the hard-pressed hill farmers are paid the extra money that is due to them in March?

Mr. Silkin: I will certainly see that all arrangements for the hill farmers are made as speedily and as efficiently as possible. Turning to the fisheries question, I have said, and I repeat it now, that it is an essential requirement of the United Kingdom that we have a coastal preference. We have discussed how to define that. The meaning is very much the same, whatever we may talk about. It is essential that we keep this preference.

Mr. Jay: In view of the seriousness of the fishing situation, will my right hon. Friend note that there is a simple way in which this country—like Norway—could obtain a 200-mile exclusive zone, and that is by withdrawing altogether from the EEC?

Mr. Silkin: I should like to agree that it was a simpler way, but the fact is that even Norway has to negotiate with other people. I must admit that, were we by ourselves, this process of negotiation would be simpler. But we are not alone.

Mr. Wiggin: Is this not the first occasion on which any country seeking to revalue its green pound has had to have a serious negotiation about the issue? Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this matter took more than a week and can he further say whether his previous negotiating approach might have had something to do with the hostile response he received?

Mr. Silkin: If my previous negotiating policy had something to do with it, the end result, as far as I am concerned, confirmed that negotiating policy. We got a result which I think was better than that for which I had originally asked a week earlier. Whatever reasons the other countries had for taking the attitude which

they took must be matters for them to consider. I have tried to explain to the House the reasons that were given.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated on the number of jobs he has saved in the fishing industry by his action over the past few days? Can he tell the House whether he thinks the present situation does not provide a wonderful opportunity for demonstrating to Europe how fish can be conserved by limitation of effort and appropriate quotas? Will he bring before the House some positive recommendations for a 50-miles exclusive zone within our own waters?

Mr. Silkin: I think that the next few days require me to take very urgent consideration of all the factors that need to be taken into account. I agree that this may well be a moment for meeting a challenge—I do not mean a physical challenge, but an intellectual challenge—to show how we as a country can properly organise, as a coastal State, a real fisheries policy.

Mr. Wall: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that British legislation will be used to impose conservation measures up to a 200-mile limit? In that case, will he consider effort quotas, mesh size, restriction to one type of net for every vessel, and control of industrial fishing?

Mr. Silkin: The immediate problem is to see that those conservation measures, whether on a Community or a national basis, which were in existence before are maintained. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that I shall then have to do an awful lot of looking to see what ought to be done thereafter.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is refreshing to see British Ministers negotiating with a ruthlessness normally demonstrated only by other Common Market Ministers? Will he go on to ensure that there is no price rise in the price review over and above an absolute minimum figure of 1 per cent., because a rise beyond that would be utterly intolerable to the consumers in the Common Market and add to the extraordinary mountains that we already have?

Mr. Silkin: I thank my hon. Friend. The Government's view of the price negotiations, particularly of the prices of


commodities in structural surplus, is well known and hardly needs repeating. Having said that, perhaps I should repeat it. Our view is that, where commodities are in structural surplus, they are in structural surplus because of the end price, and it is that that needs dealing with.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his insistence on treating all fisheries issues as a whole will be widely welcomed and that as long as he continues his insistence he will be supported throughout the fishing industry? Can he be more forthcoming about third countries, such as Norway and the Faroes, and how our fishermen will be affected over the next few weeks? Is he satisfied that we shall be able to enforce whatever unilateral action may be necessary?

Mr. Silkin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that final point. My answer to it is "Yes, I am satisfied about that." On the question of negotiations with third countries, I suggested that the Commission's mandate—it has a mandate to negotiate with third countries on a total allocation basis—be continued and confirmed, and that was done. It means that the mandate to negotiate remains, but, of course, the allocation is then a matter of some dispute.

Mr. Buchan: Will my right hon. Friend accept the simple point that, apart from the petulant yelping from Yeovil, virtually the entire nation, including all the fishermen and very many farmers, will applaud the fact that for once a sturdy British voice is speaking up for it? My right hon. Friend referred to the £3 difference on the family spending as between his proposals and what was proposed by the Conservative Party in relation to the green pound. Will he make a further calculation to show how much difference there would have been under the policy propounded by the Scottish National Party of a 20-plus per cent. devaluation by the end of the year?

Mr. Silkin: If it really were the SNP's policy—I do not know, but I take what my hon. Friend has said—to ask for a 20 per cent. devaluation in the green pound by the end of the year, I suppose that in the year following there would have been about a 4p in the pound increase in food prices.

Mr. Gould: While my right hon. Friend can be assured of overwhelming support for the skill and tenacity he has shown, does he not sometimes long for the days when the British Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could take sensible decisions in the national interest without getting bogged down in the unpredictable and irrational quagmire of Community negotiations?

Mr. Silkin: If it is not already in the Library, I think that I had better place there a copy of my speech to the Farmers' Club last month.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fishermen of Northern Ireland fully support his stubborn attitude to the other Common Market countries? Will he take action as quickly as possible unilaterally to stop the greed of other Common Market fishing industries in taking our fish, on which the livelihood of our fishermen and their families depends?

Mr. Silkin: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I would say "sweetly reasonable" rather than "stubborn". What he says about unilateral action must be one of a number of factors that will need to be carefully considered in the next few days.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is obviously assured of the congratulations of the House on the firmness of his stand against the fisheries proposals, but there is still confusion between the demands of the industry for a 50-mile exclusive zone, the initial Government proposal for a belt up to 50 miles, and the later proposal for a dominant preference area. Can my right hon. Friend confirm, therefore, that it is the Government's intention not to accept any regime which does not give us control over access and catches within 50 miles round our coast and that it is also their urgent intention to bring in national conservation measures to show just how serious we are in these negotiations?

Mr. Silkin: I think that both these matters come under our essential requirements.

Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his vigour and patience in these fisheries negotiations are much appreciated? But it is depressing for us to hear how he always seems


to be in a position of one against the other eight in the Common Market Council of Fisheries Ministers. Will he perhaps take this opportunity of reminding the other Community countries that his patience is not limited, and nor is that of this House?

Mr. Silkin: I have a feeling that the debates in this House may well be read throughout Europe.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will call those right hon. and hon. Members who have been rising throughout.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since he became the responsible Minister, he has begun to sound more and more like the football manager on television with a team in the relegation zone? Does he not appreciate that it is no good playing in these foreign leagues? All the time the prices are rising, they are demanding our fish, they are drilling for oil, and our net contribution is rising to £860 million in a few years' time. It might kid some of the Marketeers that he is doing a great job, and he may be doing a great job in terms of other Ministers who go to Brussels, but it does not kid me. The only answer is to get off the European gravy train.

Mr. Silkin: A lot of my time and energy is spent in dealing with my colleagues in the Council of Ministers in Europe, and I have not enough energy left wholly to deal with my hon. Friend. But such energy as I have leads me to ask him a question which he might consider. [Interruption.] I am answering his question with a question, which is a well-known House of Commons device. In due course my hon. Friend might give me what he considers to be the answer. Does his point of view mean that a British Minister in the Council of Ministers should simply sit back and let every single thing be done against this country? Whatever may be a British Minister's view, should he not stand up for the nation?

Mr. Skinner: My right hon. Friend just should not go.

Mr. Fairbairn: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-

Mare (Mr. Wiggin) the Minister said that he thought that the Continental countries would have to consider their reasons for opposition to devaluation of the green pound. Will he now consider the reasons for the opposition—namely, that his policy of resisting it for so long, and therefore allowing the other countries to provide our food from their resources, has resulted in the fact that they are reluctant to lose our markets? Will he take that lesson to heart and in future not so stubbornly imagine that it is in the interests of the consumers falsely to hold down food prices for ever at the expense of our own farmers?

Mr. Silkin: I note what the Conservative Party's policy on food prices is. If the Conservative Party does not want to give it all the publicity that the hon. and learned Gentleman apparently wants to give it, I am happy to give it publicity on my own. But I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, certainly in the pigmeat sector, the country that was most anxious to create a market here was the country which strongly supported the United Kingdom in the devaluation of the green pound. It was not Denmark that objected.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend take it that there will be wide admiration for the stand which he is taking in the Common Market on behalf of British interests, especially among our food manufacturers, the National Consumer Council and the consumer organisations? But will he continue his efforts not only to try to get some sense into the green pound but to get some sense into the whole common agricultural policy, if that is at all possible?
Finally, will my right hon. Friend address his mind to the political question—namely, how he and the Government can make a decision, and the House of Commons can make a decision, but he is not powerful enough to push the Council of Ministers? Will not my right hon. Friend's position be further weakened if we have a directly elected Assembly?

Mr. Spearing: Yes.

Mr. Silkin: I think that each hon. Member must make up his own mind on that question.

Mr. Skinner: My right hon. Friend stayed outside.

Mr. Silkin: That was my way of making up my mind. On the other questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), it is undoubtedly true that the common agricultural policy as at present constituted does not properly serve the interests of the people of the European Community. For that reason we advocate a radical change in it. Although there are several aspects to it, to my mind that change has as its greatest point the fight against the price levels for commodities in structural surplus.

Mr. Biffen: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that the grudging reluctance of the German Government to accept a policy in respect of the green pound devalution which had the authority of the House of Commons—the motion having been moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton)—will not have passed unnoticed, and it will have intensified the desire of many of us who wish the House to have greater authority in the decision-taking processes of the Community?
To that end could the right hon. Gentleman point out to his colleagues in the Community and in the German Government, in particular, that the proposition that the prospective Common Market price review should lead to further price increases for those products which are in structural surplus—cereals and milk—would make a total nonsense and would run contrary to deeply held opinion throughout the House?

Mr. Silkin: I have said to the House on several occasions, and I have said in Brussels, that one attends price review meetings to examine everything on its merits, but I have said also that I believe that the merit of having a higher price policy for commodities at present in structural surplus escapes me.

Mr. Spriggs: My right hon. Friend reported to the House this afternoon that there is a lot of butter in the Common Market countries at present. Will he take it that if the Community officials decide to sell the butter outside the Common Market, at 6p a pound, to a foreign Power again, he and his colleagues will have something to answer for when he makes his next report?

Mr. Silkin: I have often made plain the feeling which I believe to prevail throughout the House about that sort of transaction. It is ludicrous. But this question serves to re-emphasise two points. First, let us examine and tackle the question of the price of commodities in structural surplus, butter being a good example. Second, until we have got it totally in its form, was not the United Kingdom right last March and April to insist that we had a butter subsidy?

NATIONAL SECURITY (PRESS DISCLOSURES)

Mr. Blaker: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for an inquiry into the disclosure in the Press of secret matters affecting national security.
The matter is specific in that there is a report in today's Press that last summer the identity was disclosed of a man working in a top job in Downing Street who was said to be a Soviet agent. The story goes on to disclose a reference in a conversation with journalists to the—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a number of occasions I have been told by the Table that, by established practice and by the rules of the House, no hon. Member may raise anything which is in any way of a secret nature. Anything of that nature must not be revealed, debated or mentioned.
If the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) is raising something which he says is secret, I should like to know whether we shall in future be allowed to raise matters which are secret, since, frankly, I have been barred many times on that.

Mr. Speaker: In view of his long experience in the House, I pay great respect to what the hon. Gentleman says, but all that the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) has done so far has been to refer to what is in the Press today. That is not a secret. I think that we ought to hear what the hon. Member has to say.

Mr. Blaker: I confirm, Mr. Speaker, that it is not my intention to raise any matters which are secret.
The story goes on to disclose a reference in a conversation with journalists to the fourth man in the Philby affair. It continues by saying that the civil servant involved had been the subject of an inquiry and had been cleared.
Whether or not that last point is correct is not my concern today, important though it is. My concern is that this is not the first time that stories revealing what must be secret matters affecting the security of the country have appeared in the Press in recent weeks. Only last Monday stories were published which brought into question the efficiency and impartiality of the security services.
I believe this to be a new departure in the way we deal with security matters in this country and one which has serious implications. I urge that it would be right for the Prime Minister to set up an independent inquiry into how these allegations came to be made public and the facts surrounding them. The exact terms of reference of the inquiry would, of course, be a matter for discussion in the debate.
The matter is, therefore, specific in that it involves the need for an inquiry into the reports in the Press today and on Monday.
The matter is important because these revelations reflect on the way in which responsibility for security has been and is being exercised. The efficient working of our security services is vital to the country's interests, and, at least, these stories must have damaged the morale of the security services. Moreover, it seems to me that today's story, like Monday's, involves the disclosure of official secrets.
The subject should have urgent consideration, because today's story suggests that what is involved is not simply one occasion but several occasions on which secret matters have been ventilated to and in the Press. For all I know, there may be more to come.
The many serious and, indeed, alarming questions to which this matter gives rise should be cleared up as soon as possible. Not only is it important that the morale of our security services should be maintained, but it is important that public confidence in them should be preserved. The House should have the opportunity to express itself on the subject as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he proposed to raise this matter. He wishes there to be a debate on
the need for an inquiry into the disclosure in the Press of secret matters affecting national security.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but I have not to decide whether there ought to be a debate on the matter. I have to decide whether there shall be a debate tonight or tomorrow.
Having listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, I am afraid that I cannot grant his application.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (procedure)), the motion relating to Road Traffic may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Twelve o'clock.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

NAVAL DEFENCE (INQUIRY)

4.50 p.m.

Mr. John Loveridge: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State for Defence to set up an inquiry to examine the prospects for improving defence from potential terrorist attack by the provision of missile and other defence systems for installation on British merchant ships and oil rigs; and for connected purposes.
Everyone in this House detests terrorism and its spreading evil. It has struck in the air and in cities, and in time it may strike at sea. There are three reasons why I am bringing forward the Bill calling for a radical inquiry into the defence of merchant ships and oil rigs. Such an inquiry is needed urgently.
The first reason is that the world oil trade around the Cape has risen from 0·8 million barrels a day in 1965 to 18 million barrels a day in 1976—that is more than a 20-fold increase in a decade. It is a greater increase than in any other trade route. Therefore, as a terrorist target it is more inviting than ever before.
Secondly, parts of the African coast have fallen into potentially hostile hands, and more could do so in future. There are numerous inlets along the coast where terrorists could hide out and from which small boats could be launched to carry mines out to sea.
The third reason is that, after a period of phenomenal growth since 1962, the Russian navy already has obsolescent equipment. Some of this could be sold or could fall into the wrong hands. Missile systems such as the SSN2 on OSA class ships are said to be being phased out in favour of improved versions. We have seen Russian arms used world-wide from Vietnam to Ethiopia and there is no reason why their surplus naval arms could not be used by terrorists at sea.
These three factors—the vast increase in oil trade round the Cape, new hideouts along the African coast, and the surplus of naval equipment available—combine to make terrorist action against merchant ships more likely in the future than in the past.
In October 1976 the French Admiral Labrousse said that a total of 665 super tankers sailed the routes away from the

oilfields of the Middle East—ships that are too large to use the canal. France alone needs 120 million tonnes of oil a year, three quarters of which comes from the Persian Gulf. Britain's 2,000 merchant ships—the youngest merchant fleet afloat—include the largest number of refrigerated ships and many modern tankers, which could be a prime target.
Any threat to tankers is likely to be associated with a threat to the oil rigs. The Select Committee on Science and Technology commented on this in paragraph 121 in its 1974 report on offshore engineering. It said:
Offshore oil and gas installations represent a major defence requirement.
It went on:
We recommended that Ministers should initiate an inquiry to establish the requirements for the protection of offshore installations.
It is not only oil that is carried by ships but food and minerals and the protection of these also deserves an inquiry. Our aim must be to protect not the thousands of miles of sea routes but the ships on them and to find out how this can be done without spending more than we can afford.
The inquiry should consider the economic systems of self-defence for merchant ships; deck fittings for simple helicopters, and the employment of light naval boats or hovercraft for dealing with mines. It could also examine the possibility of using balloons for observation and light defensive missile systems.
Nothing in any of these suggestions is contrary to our traditions in the past. In times of peace throughout the centuries of piracy merchant ships have been equipped to protect themselves. Legal difficulties should not arise. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter enshrines the right of self defence. It says:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defence.
The manning of anti-terrorist equipment should not be too difficult. There could be volunteers among the crews under a Reserve officer and training could be given by the Royal Navy. Naturally the patriotic sentiments of the shipping companies would make them wish to help.
This equipment might prove as well to be a source of export sales to our


NATO allies if the system proved successful in British merchant ships. This would help to create jobs in the good cause of security.
We should not discredit or fail to examine the re-introduction of old ideas. The self-defence of ships in modem times could gain much from ideas of the past. We cannot forget that in 1917 submarine sinkings had brought us near to defeat and a reversion to the old idea of convoys saved us. That idea was resisted by the Admiralty, backed by wrong statistics to the Cabinet. Old ideas in new forms have saved us before and may do so again. Before the Second World War it was a a widely held view that the submarine menace had been overcome. How wrong that was proved. All fresh ideas must be considered. We must be ready for terrorism to extend to the seas in the same way as we have seen it extend with the Cuban mercenaries across Africa.
Perhaps I may remind the House of an article written by Patrick Beesley in "Navy International" in October 1977, in which he said:
As long, however, as our maritime forces remain so shamefully reduced as they are at present, improvisation and ad hoc measures will have to fill the gap at sea, and the enthusiastic amateur may perhaps still be able to put on a show that no professional could provide.
The need for a high level inquiry is urgent, and it should include scientists of originality and distinction as well as senior officers of the Armed Services, shipping, oil and other industries involved.
If we strengthen our capacity to meet the threat of terrorism at sea, that terrorism is less likely to arise and the ideal of peaceful trade will be made safer. I am grateful, in asking leave of the House to bring in the Bill, to have the support of distinguished Members who have given much careful thought to the defence problems of our nation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Loveridge, Miss Harvie Anderson, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, Mr. Julian Amery, Mr. Robert Banks, Sir Frederic Bennett, Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison, Mr. Robert Rhodes James, Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles, Mr. Geoffrey

Pattie, Mr. Patrick Wall, Mr. George Younger.

NAVAL DEFENCE (INQUIRY)

Mr. John Loveridge accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State for Defence to set up an inquiry to examine the prospects for improving defence from potential terrorist attack by the provision of missile and other defence systems for installation on British merchant ships and oil rigs; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th February and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

SCOTLAND BILL

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Is the hon. Gentleman referring to a matter in the House or in Committee?

Mr. Dalyell: In the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Dalyell: I wish to make no great play of the matter, but it is fair to point out that in the last three days of consideration of the Scotland Bill we have lost 80 minutes, 65 minutes and today 90 minutes of guillotine time. Perhaps this is a matter which at its leisure the Procedure Committee may wish to examine.

Mr. Stokes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that because of two long Government statements a total of one-and-a-half hours of debating time has been lost on the Scotland Bill. I hope that this matter will he drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House, who was responsible for the guillotine motion. I regard this as a great abuse of parliamentary privilege and as a matter that detracts from the rights of Back Benchers in all parts of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter for the Chair. The Chair operates according to the business motion.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 31st January.]

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

New Clause 4

BILL OF RIGHTS FOR SCOTLAND

'( ).—(1) It is hereby recognised and declared that in Scotland there have existed, and, under the new institutions of government established by this Act, there shall continue to exist, those rights and freedoms acknowledged by the United Kingdom by virtue of its ratification of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the First and Fourth Protocols thereto, and set out in Schedule (Bill of Rights for Scotland) to this Act.

(2) The provisions of Schedule (Bill of Rights for Scotland) to this Act are referred to in the following provisions of this Act as the Bill of Rights for Scotland.'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this we may take the following new clause:

New Clause 5

PROTECTED RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

'( ).—(1) For the purposes of this Act, and without prejudice to Article IV of the Articles of Union of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland (guaranteeing freedom of commerce and equality of rights throughout Great Britain), the following are protected rights and freedoms, namely,—
(a) the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights for Scotland; and
(b) the freedom of trade and commerce between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom; and the right of every person lawfully resident in the United Kingdom to equality before the law and the equal protection of the law.

(2) Any enactment passed or made by the Scottish Assembly or a member of the Scottish Executive and any instrument of legislative character (including a byelaw) made there-under, shall, to the extent that it violates, or authorises the violation of, a protected right or freedom, be void.

(3) For the purposes of this Act, a protected right or freedom is violated when by any law, or by any action or failure to act, that right or freedom is abrogated, abridged or infringed, and any reference to an action where a right or freedom is violated shall include a failure to act.'.

We may also take Amendment No. 557, a new schedule:

'BILL OF RIGHTS FOR SCOTLAND

Article 1

1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Article 2

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 3

1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

3. For the purposes of this Article the term "forced or compulsory labour' shall not include:
(a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 4 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;
(b) any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised service exacted instead of compulsory military service;
(c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
(d) any work or service which forms part of civil obligations.

Article 4

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

No one shall be deprived of this liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful


order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person affected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addits, or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorising entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.

2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.

3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

Article 5

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interest of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the

nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or to have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Article 6

1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

Article 7

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 8

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes the freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others.

Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent the Scottish


Assembly or Executive from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 10

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restriction shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

Article 11

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Article 12

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

Article 13

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Article 14

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of the Scottish Assembly or Executive to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

Article 15

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the Scottish Assembly or Executive shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

Article 16

No one shall be deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.

Article 17

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of Scotland shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave Scotland.

3. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety for the maintenance of "ordre public" for the prevention of crime, for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

4. The rights set forth in paragraph 1 may also be subject, in particular areas, to restrictions imposed in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society.

Mr. Brittan: New Clause 4 and the other new clause and new schedule which we are to debate with it raise important constitutional issues, not all of which are related directly to the subject of devolution and the method of devolution put to the Committee by the Government. Therefore, I very much hope that when considering these new provisions, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will not do so from an entrenched position reflecting their basic view on this legislation but will consider them in a rather separate sense, particularly when I stress that these provisions in no sense seek to wreck the Bill. They reflect a particular view as to the way in which devolution should operate, if devolution takes place. I repeat that they are not aimed at wrecking the Bill and there is no reason why, if they are passed, those who favour the Bill should feel unduly discomforted. Equally, if they are passed, there is no reason why those who are against the Bill should feel that they have in any way lost out. I suggest that these provisions should be considered on their merits.
The purpose of these new clauses and the new schedule is to provide Scotland


with a Bill of Rights. The rights and freedoms that will be protected if this Bill of Rights new clause is passed are those set out in the European Convention of Human Rights to which the United Kingdom is already a signatory, with slight alteration reflecting the fact that some are not applicable to a devolved Scotland because of the limitation on the powers of the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive.
If this Bill is to pass, we are in effect providing a written constitution for Scotland, and virtually every such constitution which has been promulgated from that of the United States onwards has included a Bill of Rights. We therefore believe that it is only right that the people of Scotland, if they are to have a devolved system of government, should also have the benefit of a Bill of Rights that is characteristic of written constitutions and of systems of government of this kind.
Personally, I wish that the United Kingdom as a whole had the benefit of a Bill of Rights as part of the law of the land. But we are not legislating for the United Kingdom as a whole in these proceedings and nothing that we do in Committee can provide by means of this Bill a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole. That does not seem to me to be a reason for Scotland not to enjoy the benefits of a Bill of Rights.
I would say to those hon. Gentlemen who favour the cause of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole that I can think of nothing that would advance further and give greater reality to that cause than the promulgation of a Bill of Rights for Scotland as a first step.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman say who will interpret the Bill of Rights? Will it be interpreted by the judges, will it increase their power, and where will this put Parliament in respect of this legislation? In other words, who will determine what is the law and what is not the law, and who will determine how one makes the law under this kind of system?

Mr. Brittan: I shall cover these points a little later. If I fail to do so, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will intervene later. I want to carry him with me on these matters.
The answer in such a succinct form at this stage is that it involves judicial interpretation, but no more judicial interpretation than is already involved in the Bill. Parliament will in no way be affected. The sovereignty of Parliament will not be diminished by one jot or tittle. That is the short answer, but I shall elaborate a little later in my remarks.
I believe that those who favour a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole will find that the passage of this Bill of Rights for Scotland in particular would greatly further the cause of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole.
At the moment legislation has been proposed to that effect from the Liberal Benches in the House of Lords and is being considered by a Select Committee of that House. Other distinguished figures have come out in favour of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom. I believe that if Scotland is given a Bill of Rights in the first instance that would be a case of Scotland acting as a pioneer leading to the acceptance of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole.
I also wish to make it clear that this proposal is in no sense meant to imply that the devolved Assembly and the devolved Scottish Executive would in any way be more likely to infringe the rights that are protected by a Bill of Rights than would the United Kingdom Government or this Parliament. Instead, I would argue that in a devolved Scotland ordinary citizens should be provided with the machinery and the legal means of protecting and enforcing those rights which we do not have in the United Kingdom as a whole but which I personally would like to have.

Mr. John Stokes: Does my hon Friend also agree that this Bill makes a new written constitution for that part of the United Kingdom we call Scotland, that a written constitution is something new in British history, and that such a constitution requires written safeguards?

Mr. Britton: I endorse every word my hon. Friend said. The effect of the passage of these provisions would be that action taken by a Scottish Assembly and Executive would be void if it infringed the Bill of Rights. That would mean—this picks up the point made by the hon.


Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—that an individual citizen would have the right to redress in the ordinary courts of the land if the Scottish Assembly or Executive acted in that way. It is absurd for anybody to suggest that that could never happen. It is in no sense a criticism of the future conduct of the Scottish Assembly or Executive to suggest that it might happen because it certainly could happen. I suggest that in the case of the United Kingdom Government, as we now stand, there have been many occasions on which infringements of the Bill of Rights which are equivalent to a European convention have been alleged against the United Kingdom Government and action has had to be taken to deal with the situation. [Interruption.]
Let me mention as an example the changes in the prison rules as a result of one adjudication.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there had been a Bill of Rights in the United Kingdom it would not have been possible for the extraordinary vote to take place last Wednesday about changing the rules of what has normally been regarded as the constitution?

Mr. Brittan: I would not agree with that. [Interruption.] But, happily, the case for the Bill of Rights is not dependent on forming a view on such controversial propositions as that.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: It is changing the rules.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) what may be a very ignorant question? Where does Schedule 557 come from? I think that we ought to know something about its origins. We are told, among other things, that
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

Mr. Brittan: It is a direct quotation from the convention to which we are a party, and I shall come to that in a moment.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I heard the hon. Lady referring to ballot rigging in relation to the vote that took place last Thursday evening. I

understood that a number of hon. Members of the Scottish National Party, together with Whips from the Labour Party were having an argument and holding up the legitimate vote of the House of Commons. If any accusations are to be made, they should be made against the people who were trying to deprive the House of Commons of the opportunity of carrying out a legitimate vote at that time and of discussing and voting upon a legitimate amendment following the vote. I would, therefore, ask that Members of the SNP should keep to the rules of this Committee and not accuse people of ballot rigging when they themselves have indulged in a most reprehensible activity.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Oh!

Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Sir Myer.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Is this the same point of order?

Sir David Renton: Yes, Sir Myer. I was trying to listen keenly to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said. I had difficulty in hearing it all because the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) kept up a perpetual, rather high-pitched series of interpolations, which is contrary to the rules of this House. I am reluctant to ask the hon. Member for Walton to make his point of order all over again, but I hope that you, Sir Myer, will call upon the hon. Lady to observe the rules of the House, which are only a matter of courtesy.

The First Deputy Chairman: I heard the point of order of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). All I can say is that, irrespective of from which party it came, any allegation of ballot rigging is strongly to be deprecated in this Committee. I need go no further than that, because I am occupying the Chair, but there is quite a lot that I could say elsewhere. But I agree with the right hon. Member and the hon. Member that we should observe the usual practices and maintain the dignity of this Committee at all times.

Mr. Brittan: I was saying that there have been many occasions on which we in the United Kingdom have had to deal with alleged infringements of the Bill of


Rights. The point of the Bill of Rights, though, is not to punish Governments, whether it is the United Kingdom Government that one is talking about or the devolved Scottish Government. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent there being infringements of the rights that it is designed to protect. Therefore, it seems to me that it is desirable on that ground as well.
If one is saying that alone, of all Governments, the future Scottish Government will be incapable of perhaps accidentally infringing the Bill of Rights in a way that every other Government from time to time find themselves accused of doing, the proposition is absurd. I operate on the assumption that the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive in respect of the Bill of Rights would behave in a way that is on average no better and no worse than that of any Government. I take the view that all Governments ought to be limited by a requirement to observe fundamental rights of the kind that are enshrined by international agreement in the European Convention, which is reflected in the Bill.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Fred Silvester: Would my hon. Friend mind reconciling what he has just stated about the Government of the United Kingdom having to modify their practices as a result of the decision of the European Court with his previous statement that if we have a Bill of Rights there is no change at all in the relative positions of the judiciary and the parliamentary system?

Mr. Brittan: We have felt obliged to alter our position as a result of the decision of the European Court because we are signatories to the European Convention, and the court has adjudged against us in that particular case.
Nothing done by the passage of a Bill of Rights for Scotland would alter that situation. If anything, it would reduce the number of circumstances in which that is likely to occur, for reasons which I shall come to later. The chances of that happening would be substantially diminished rather than increased.
The extent to which that is likely to occur would not be affected one jot or tittle by the passage of a Bill of Rights. It has occurred because of our being a

signatory to the treaty and not because of any legislation. It would not be altered by legislation.
Questions were asked about the contents of the documents. I answered, in response to an intervention, that it reflects, with small changes and small diminutions, the contents of the European Convention to which we are already a party. The convention contains a variety of provisions, both general and particular. By way of example, I refer to a very general one in Article 7:
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
However, Article 5.3 is something quite specific. It says:
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;"
and so on.
We could argue about what the contents of a Bill of Rights should be. It is certain that if the House of Commons or a Committee of the House sought to reach agreement on what the Bill of Rights should be, we would never reach agreement, because some Members on one side of the House would argue strongly in favour of extensive, libertarian rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and some Members from other parts of the House might argue in favour of incorporating in a Bill of Rights provisions protecting property rights. Therefore, there would not be agreement. That might very well be an insuperable objection to a Bill of Rights.
However, very fortunately, before those matters became as controversial as they are today, the United Kingdom Government became a signatory to the European Convention, to this particular package of rights. The history of it dates back very far. I understand that the basic documents from which the European Convention ultimately emanated were largely of British creation, as it happens.
Be that as it may, it is right to say that the United Kingdom Government are signatories to that convention. Both major political parties have had their turns in Government since that was the case, and


neither political party has sought to renounce the convention or to express any doubts about it. It goes beyond that.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brittan: In a moment. It goes beyond that. Not only have both political parties accepted the convention but both political parties have accepted the right of individual petition to the Commission and then to the court to deal with it.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: What has changed?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Member asks what has changed. I am coming to that in a moment. What both political parties have done is to incorporate the convention in the law of the United Kingdom. That means that if it is found that we are in breach of the convention through any legislation or Executive act, the matter has to be taken to the European Commission and then to the European Court. The British courts have no jurisdiction in the matter at all. Absolutely nothing can be done here.
Every time there is any allegation of an infringement, we have to wash our dirty linen in public. That is exactly what happened in the Ireland situation, and it is happening now about the Isle of Man. What I am saying in support of the new clause is that this is a unique opportunity to enact a Bill of Rights for Scotland. There are problems about doing that.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I am not a lawyer. It is suggested that it would create legal difficulties if the European Convention was, as it were, integrated into Scottish domestic law by virtue of the acceptance of this Bill of Rights as part of the devolution Bill when it was not integrated into English domestic law. Is that so?

Mr. Brittan: Faced with an abstract proposition of that kind, I cannot say that there are no legal difficulties in doing that, because the nature of the legal difficulties has not been put to me. I see no reason why there should be any insuperable difficulties to doing so. I have an argument, to which I am com

ing, which seems to suggest strongly that any difficulties that there might be are not insuperable. In answer to a general proposition, I would not like to say that there are no problems at all, but I cannot believe that there are insuperable difficulties of that kind.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If this became the law and someone in Scotland chose to take a case to court in Scotland and received a judgment with which he was perhaps unhappy, and he then used his rights as a United Kingdom citizen to take it to the European Court and possibly achieved a contrary judgment, what would the position be? Would the judgment in Scotland run, or would it be the judgment of the European Court?

Mr. Brittan: I hesitate to answer propositions of law in the presence of the Lord Advocate. However, I know that I shall be corrected if I am wrong. As I understand it, the position concerning the law of Scotland and, indeed, the law of the United Kingdom, would be that the judgment of the Scottish court would stand, but concerning international law and our international obligations, the decision of the European Court would be the law.
But then what would have to happen would be that the Council of Ministers would have to consider the matter, and pressure would be put on the United Kingdom Government to make their law conform to the European Court's decision, it having been found that, contrary to the decision of the Scottish court, there was a breach of he Convention. I see that I am not corrected by the Lord Advocate, and I draw some comfort from that on this occasion.
As I see it, there is a unique opportunity to enact a Bill of Rights in Scotland. As I have said, I think that it ought to be enacted for the United Kingdom as a whole, but I readily concede that there are problems about doing that, and they are problems to which reference has already been made. There is the problem that it is thought that the enactment of a Bill of Rights in the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the sovereignty of Parliament. That would certainly be true if what was suggested was that the Bill of Righs should be entrenched in any way—in other words, if there was any suggestion that subsequent legislation which was in


breach of the Bill of Rights would be something that he House of Commons and Parliament could not pass.
Various ways of dealing with that problem have been suggested, such as having a Bill of Rights which was not entrenched but would be regarded as a canon of statutory construction rather than a limitation on Parliament subsequently. Unfortunately, however, that is not a problem that we have to consider because we are considering not a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom but a Bill of Rights for Scotland.
Concerning Scotland, in the Bill that the Government have placed before us the Scottish Assembly's powers are already very carefully and narrowly defined. If the Scottish Assembly or the Scottish Executive act outside those powers, they are acting ultra vires and the Assembly Act is of no effect and is void. The Acts of the Executive can be restrained, and they can also be declared void.
Therefore, in including in this Bill of Rights further limitations on what the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive can do, we are in no way acting inconsistently with the basic principle of the Scotland Bill, which is absolutely chock-a-block with limitations on what the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive can do. For example, if we can have in the Bill a provision that says that the Scottish Assembly can legislate for the protection, improvement and maintenance of salmon and freshwater fisheries but it cannot control fish diseases, it seems to me that we are prescribing in a fairly close way the limitations on the powers of the Scottish Assembly, and perhaps quite rightly so.
The only difference between the limitations in the Bill and the limitations that the new clauses seek to introduce is that whereas the limitations in the Bill are in a real sense limitations on the governmental and legislative powers of Scotland, the new clauses are primarily concerned with giving rights to individuals. Therefore, it seems to me that it is entirely apt to include a Bill of Rights as a limitation, but a positive limitation, in the Scotland Bill. If it is right that government generally should be limited by obligations of this kind, it seems that there is a strong case for using this opportunity.
However, there are those who question, none the less, whether it is right that a Bill of Rights of this kind should be included for a devolved legislature. All I would say is that I do not see why not, provided that it is made quite clear that the reason for doing it is not out of any disrespect, hostility or suspicion as to what the Scottish Assembly might do, but because we have opportunity here, with a written constitution and with a devolved Government, to do something which the doctrine of sovereignty does not, in my view, prevent, although it at least creates problems concerning the United Kingdom as a whole.
As it happens, this problem has been considered by a most authoritative body, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland, which has produced an extremely telling, thorough and well-researched document on the protection of human rights by law in Northern Ireland. That goes far beyond the mere question of Northern Ireland and the particular situation there. It throws a lot of light on this question generally. At paragraph 6.15 in page 60, the report says,
Although we are firmly of the opinion that the best way to provide comprehensive protection for human rights in Northern Ireland would be to incorporate the European Convention into the domestic law of the United Kingdom as a whole, we would not rule out the introduction of a Bill of Rights limited to Northern Ireland in all circumstances. We believe that in the event of the return of devolved legislative and executive functions to a new government in Northern Ireland (either before or after the incorporation of the European Convention into domestic law), it would be desirable for the enabling legislation to include a clear and enforceable charter of rights for Northern Ireland.
That is exactly what we are proposing to do for Scotland. The basic decision whether any of Scotland, Northern Ireland, England or Wales should be limited in any way is one that has been taken in the international sphere. This does not involve any diminution of the sovereignty of Parliament, but—

Mr. Rooker: It does.

Mr. Brittan: I am sorry, but it does not, because Parliament is as able as ever to pass an Act which is an infringement of the Bill of Rights. In doing so, it is not in any way bound or limited by any constitutional barrier. What it would be doing is putting the United Kingdom in


breach of its international obligations, but it can very well say "We are limiting the powers of the Scottish Assembly in all sorts of respects, and one of the respects in which we are doing that is that it shall not act in breach of the Bill of Rights."

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the Standing Advisory Commission's report on Northern Ireland, will he also reflect that in paragraph 3.01 the report says,
The obligations of the United Kingdom Government under international treaties (especially the European Convention) and the corresponding rights and freedoms which they confer apply to the entire territory of the United Kingdom. It would therefore be artificial and impracticable to consider their implementation within an exclusively Northern Ireland context.

Mr. Brittan: But that is the subject of the paragraph that I read. That is not fair. The hon. Gentleman is doing less than justice to his normal standard of fairness, because what he was ignoring was that what the report is saying is that as long as there are no devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, there is no case for treating Northern Ireland separately from the point of view of the Bill of Rights. The Minister may disagree with the document, but it clearly says, not only in paragraph 6.15 but in its summary, that if there is to be devolution to Northern Ireland of substantial legislative and administrative powers, it favours the enactment of a clear and enforceable charter of rights for Northern Ireland, whether or not there is such a charter for the rest of the United Kingdom.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I was pointing out what I saw as a certain inconsistency in the conclusions of the Commission's report. I do not believe that the fact that there is to be a devolved Assembly makes much difference to the practicality of enforcing a Bill of Rights.

Mr. Brittan: I did not realise that the Minister was not saying that the report did not say what I claimed it said, but rather that he disagreed with the document.
There is a clear distinction to be made. With devolution we are handing over a

new constitution and the right to make laws. Even in a federal system, which provides for the right to make laws of all kinds, there is always a Bill of Rights. We are saying that there are all sorts of limitations on the Scottish Assembly and that it is entirely reasonable that one of those limitations should be that the Assembly may not act in breach of the Bill of Rights to which the United Kingdom is a signatory and by which it is bound internationally.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman seems to have glossed over the point about the constitutional limitations on the powers of a legislature. Normally, a Bill of Rights is entrenched by putting it to the people and any change in the Bill can occur only if it is approved by the people. The Scotland Bill will be put to the Scottish people and will become entrenched in a way in which our legislation is not normally entrenched. We can overturn tomorrow what we pass today. Of course the referendum is consultative, but this matter will be put to the Scottish people as a Bill of Rights and will surely present a constitutional barrier and a restriction on the legislature.

Mr. Brittan: It will not be a constitutional barrier to the United Kingdom legislature, because what is proposed is that the Scotland Bill should be put to the Scottish electorate. If the Bill of Rights is included in the Scotland Bill, the people of Scotland may say that they want the scheme of devolution and the Assembly with the powers proposed for it and the limitations on those powers.
The limitations can be found in Schedule 10 of the Bill which goes into the most minute detail on this question and sets out the statutes which can or cannot be amended. Therefore, we are saying that the Scottish Assembly will be able to operate only within certain confines. If we accept the Bill of Rights, we shall be adding to the limitations on the Assembly, but, taking the more positive view, we shall also be giving an opportunity to the citizens of Scotland to have rights in respect of the Assembly and Executive which they do not have in respect of the United Kingdom Government exercising comparable functions now.
I believe that such a move would lead comparatively quickly to a Bill of Rights


for the United Kingdom. The House is all too well aware of my position on this legislation, but why should we not, for once, extract some good from bad and allow the Assembly to act as a trailblazer for the United Kingdom as a whole?

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: My hon. Friend is putting forward his proposal as a tempting experiment and suggesting that we should try it out on the Scots. There is a certain attraction in that, but until the English followed the Scottish example, as my hon. Friend hopes they would, would there not be a great disparity between Scotsmen, who would have recourse to their own courts, and Englishmen, who would not?

Mr. Brittan: All sorts of disparities are being created, but this is, at least, a favourable one. My hon. and learned Friend will see that it is a procedural disparity rather than a substantive disparity. The United Kingdom citizen will have his redress at one remove—from the European Court. The Scottish citizen will have direct redress from the Scottish courts.

Mr. Dalyell: This is very much a lawyer's matter, but should not those of us who are concerned about the possibility of one abortion law on this side of the border and another being created north of the border be equally concerned about a different set of laws, on the basis of differences, rather than merits or demerits, on each side of the border?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about all these matters, but the only answer to those problems is to defeat the Bill. We share a view on that, but if the Bill goes through, my proposal would be a limitation on the Assembly and Executive in favour of the citizen of Scotland. The power of the Assembly and Executive will otherwise be unfettered.
That is why, in a curious way, this argument is one that should attract supporters and opponents of the basic concept of devolution as propounded by the Government. It is not just a question of arguing the case for a Bill of Rights. As I have already pointed out, our position is fundamentally affected because we are signatories to the European Convention Anyone who says that we should not have

signed that convention or that it should be renounced must argue that at the appropriate time, but no Government of political party has said that we ought not to have signed it.
Not only are we signatories to the convention, but we have accepted the right of individual petition. The United Kingdom is bound in international law by that convention and there are important consequences flowing from that fact. It is a powerful argument in favour of the enactment of a Bill of Rights for Scotland.
If such a Bill were not passed and the Scottish Assembly or Executive did something in breach of the convention, it would not be Scotland which would be internationally liable, it would be the United Kingdom. Scotland would have no international existence in that sense and the United Kingdom would have to carry the can for what the Assembly and Executive had done, in exactly the same way as we are facing difficulties over the situation in the Isle of Man. I would not dream of prejudging or expressing a view on that case and it is irrelevant whether we are found to be in breach or not. What is relevant is the truly ludicrous sight of a British law officer going to the European Court and saying that Britain is defending legislation with which it totally disagrees since, because of the constitutional position of the Isle of Man, there is nothing we can do about it.
I do not want us to be placed in the same position in respect of the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive. It would be uncomfortable, diplomatically unnecessary, internationally embarrassing and domestically a major source of irritation between the United Kingdom Government and Scotland.
Before responding to an intervention, I deal with the point that I suspect the Minister of State will make in reply. It is right to say that if any legislation that that Assembly passes is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, in breach of our international obligations—from the Minister of State's smile I assume that I have guessed the point.

Mr. John Smith: No, another one.

Mr. Brittan: At any rate, under Clause 20 (1) the Secretary of State has power not to allow Assembly law to be an Act


of the Assembly. That is also the position under Clause 37(2). If it is an Act of the Executive, the Secretary of State can have it declared null and void in the first place. That would apply to obligations under the European Convention as well as any other conventions. That is because they are international obligations to which we are a party.
I say to the Minister of State that the position is exactly on all fours with that of the Isle of Man. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, or as he would be advised, we as a sovereign Parliament have the right to legislate for the Isle of Man. That is the position if we want to do so, and it might come to that if the court decision goes a certain way. I am saying that it would be more damaging and far more full of conflict to require the United Kingdom Government in the shape of the Secretary of State to intervene under Clause 20 and to refuse to enact or to allow a Bill to be enacted than for the matter to be considered by the courts of Scotland.
A political intervention to the effect that we cannot allow that to be done because it is in breach of the European Convention and therefore, in breach of our international obligations, would be far more unacceptable to the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive than an adjudication by a Scottish judge. Therefore, we should make it clear that the convention is part of the constitution of a devolved Scottish Assembly rather than require a United Kingdom Minister to intervene.
The distinction is not so much between action being taken by an executive politically and action being taken judicially. The distinction is between action being taken by the United Kingdom Government and action being taken within the Scottish system in the Scottish courts.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brittan: I think that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was on his feet first.

Mr. Dalyell: There are three lawyers on the Front Benches and I wish to ask a factual question as a layman. Is it the fact that at Strasbourg counsel for the Home Office said that the British Government, in common with every other

European country, disapproved of birching? It was left to another member of the United Kingdom delegation, in this instance the Manx Attorney-General, to defend the practice of birching, which he did with enthusiasm. Does it follow that in a similar situation it would be left to a Solicitor-General, Lord-Advocate, or whatever law officer is to be called in the Assembly, to be part of the United Kingdom delegation at Strasbourg and to argue a different case from that put forward by the United Kingdom Government? Is that the fact of the situation?

Mr. Brittan: Yes, unless the Secretary of State exercised his powers under Clauses 20 or 37 and said to the Assembly or Scottish Executive "Although this is within your legislative competence, your executive competence, we are not allowing it to be done because it is in breach of an international obligation."
I am saying that the political consequences of an intervention of that sort by a United Kingdom Minister, thereby stopping the Assembly or Executive from doing something because of a juridical or judicial matter—namely, the application of the Convention—would be far more damaging to good relations between the United Kingdom and Scotland, and far more subversive in that sense, than a Scottish court deciding the fact in the ordinary course of Scottish litigation.

Mr. John Smith: rose—

Mr. Silvester: rose—

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Brittan: I think that the Minister was first, followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn).

5.45 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman has been putting great stress on the European Convention, but is it not the case that he is not proposing a Bill of Rights adapted for the Assembly, if that were a good idea, but suggesting instead of a Bill of Rights—but calling it a Bill of Rights—that the European Convention on Human Rights should be directly enforceable in Scotland but nowhere else?

Mr. Brittan: I do not find that a telling intervention. Whether it is called a Bill of Rights or the European Convention is purely a matter of words, and I do not care which form of words is used. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can accuse me of disguising its name. This is an example of the Minister saying that heads he wins and tails I lose. If I had sought to alter the European Convention, he would have said that the rest of the United Kingdom is to be bound merely by the European Convention internationally, but that that is not good enough for poor old Scotland, which has to have more restrictions because the wicked English think that the Scots will misbehave themselves. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is an absurd argument.

Mr. Silvester: rose—

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Brittan: I shall accept two more interventions so long as I am not accused of acquiring the mantle of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who was accused of conducting a seminar. I do not aspire to or desire such an academic mantle, but on those terms I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Withington.

Mr. Silvester: May I draw attention to one other difference between my hon. Friend's proposal and that of the European Convention? As I understand it, the convention, in so far as it relates to individual petition, is accepted by this country on a voluntary basis for a period of years, which expires in 1981. That is the longest period for which we have renewed it. On previous occasions it has been less than five years. Whereas with the European Convention we are dealing with a much shorter time span, which might be considered experimental, I understand that what my hon. Friend is proposing is permanent.

Mr. Brittan: It is not permanent in the sense that it is enshrined in an Act of Parliament. Although the right of individual petition expires in 1981 on the basis of our present accession, that is not true about our adherence to the Convention generally, which I understand is of a more permanent nature. If at some future time we wished either to renounce the

Bill of Rights in the form of the European Convention or to modify it, or if it were to be renegotiated, Parliament as a sovereign body would be entitled to make the corresponding deletion, alteration or diminution from the Bill of Rights as it affects Scotland.
I do not think that my hon. Friend need be troubled on that score. If we decided that the burdens of the convention were unacceptable, we should not renew the right of petition. We should seek some way out of the convention and it would be the easiest thing in the world for the House of Commons, which in any event would have to be involved, to pass the corresponding amendment to the Scotland Bill.
I give way to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire.

Mr. Fairbairn: I return to the Isle of Man case. In that case the Attorney-General, who is a Member of the Isle of Man Parliament, was arguing on behalf of that Parliament, but any Scottish Law Officer would not be an elected Member of the Scottish Assembly. He might be, but it is unlikely. We would have a situation in which a Member of the House of Commons would have to act as defence counsel for a Scottish Assembly, with which he might totally disagree. Does not that raise a horrific concept?

Mr. Brittan: I think it does.
I turn now to the objection that I anticipate will come from the Minister, because analogous objections have been put forward on other occasions. The enactment of this Bill of Rights would involve the courts in controversial political matters. There are those who do not wish judicial intervention or involvement in controversial political matters and feel that the courts are inappropriate to deal with such matters.
There are two answers to that objection. The first is that such hon. Members should be opposed to the Bill altogether, because the courts will be absolutely in the heart of controversial political matters in considering whether the Scottish Assembly or Executive has acted ultra vires.
For example, in Schedule 2, paragraph 8, we find an increase in the powers of the Scottish Assembly. That provides that


the paragraphs in the preceding part of the schedule
do not prevent any provisions from being within the legislative competence of the Assembly if those provisions—
(a) are necessary or expedient for making other provisions effective or for the enforcement of other provisions".
It would be difficult to think of a more touchy political question than whether particular provisions
are necessary or expedient for making other provisions effective or for the enforcement of other provisions".
Yet that is the kind of question that the courts will have to consider.
The Minister has worked extremely hard, but I think it would be a bold man who would say that the definition of what is or is not within the power of the Scottish Assembly is so precise that there will not be occasions when difficult and acute questions arise whether the Scottish Assembly and/or Scottish Executive has exceeded its powers.
Such questions will be in form judicial and in form a matter of statutory interpretation, but in reality they will amount to judicial intervention of the most acute and anxious form in the political process.
The provision in the Bill is for involvement at two stages. First, before the Bill becomes law, the Judicial Committee can be asked whether it is within the powers of the Scottish Assembly. Secondly, the Judicial Committee or other courts can be asked whether, in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 12, a particular Bill or Act of the Executive is beyond the powers of the Scottish Assembly. That is what courts do now in the sense of interpreting Acts of Parliament. But to intervene in considering whether a devolved Assembly is exceeding its powers is clear judicial intervention in the political affairs of that Assembly.
I am totally in favour of that process, but I submit that we cannot, on the one hand, have this kind of judicial intervention and, on the other hand, keep the courts out of it. The courts are into it up to the neck.
The Minister will recall that in earlier versions of the Government's proposals the courts were not involved to nearly the same extent as they are now. The hon. Gentleman, in response to criticism, accepted that the courts had to be

involved. Therefore, it will be a matter of statutory interpretation whether the courts find that the Scottish Assembly or Executive acted in breach of the Bill of Rights that forms part of the Scotland Bill if the new clauses go through.
First, the courts are there already. Secondly, apart from the Scottish or United Kingdom courts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Withington pointed out, the right of individual petition means that in any event the courts are involved because an individual, whether in Scotland, England or the Isle of Man, can claim that there has been a breach of the European Convention and take the matter, first, before the Commission and ultimately before the European Court. Therefore, without these new clauses, the individual citizen can test whether there has been a breach of the Convention by the devolved Scottish Assembly and Executive.
In opposing the new clause on those grounds the Minister will be saying "It is all right for a foreign court to look into these matters, but it is unacceptable to take them before a Scottish or a United Kingdom court. We do not mind the individual going to the Commission and then going on to the European Court and arguing his case there, but we shall not allow him to come to the Scottish courts first".
I suggest that it is infinitely less humiliating and embarrassing, as long as the United Kingdom is a signatory to the convention, to have these matters looked at by the domestic courts of Scotland and of England instead of by the European Court.
It is right to say that, as has been pointed out, if the individual citizen is not satisfied with the answer given by a Scottish court, he can still go on to the European Court. But I believe that the Scottish and English courts would be capable of interpreting the Bill of Rights in a way that would accord with the European Court and the job would be done within the British Isles. That seems to be more commensurate with our dignity as a nation than to be alone among the signatories to the convention in refusing to allow our domestic courts to touch the matter.

Mr. Rooker: If that is the position—I know that I am about to use an argument that my hon. Friend the Minister of


State will use against me later—what is to stop the Scottish Executive legislating and passing a Bill of Rights in the same terms as in the schedule? Surely that would meet the operational argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman. What is to stop the Scottish Assembly giving to Scottish people the protection of a Bill of Rights?

Mr. Brittan: The answer is twofold. First, such a Bill of Rights passed by the Scottish Assembly would encounter the same problem—namely, the sovereignty of the Scottish Assembly—as we would if we tried to enact a United Kingdom Bill of Rights. In other words, the Scottish Assembly, having passed it, could repeal it. However, if we, as the constitution makers and the creators of the Scottish Assembly, create a Bill of Rights for Scotland, it cannot be repealed in that way.
Secondly, if the Scottish Assembly does not choose to do that, we are still responsible in the same way as in the Isle of Man.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Is it within the devolved powers of the Scottish Assembly to pass such a measure?

Mr. Brittan: I should have to consider that question. I cannot give a positive answer. I think that it probably is, but I should not like that to be taken as my considered opinion.
These new clauses are not designed in any shape or form as a hostile act towards the Scottish Assembly or Executive. It is no secret that I am opposed to this form of devolution. It is not primarily because of that opposition that I bring forward these new clauses. It seems to me that, great as the mischief of the Bill and great as the damage that it is likely to create is, in one respect, and in one respect only, it provides us with an opportunity to act in advance of the United Kingdom as a whole. It would be a tragedy if, for reasons of suspicion or prejudice, we failed to take that opportunity. It is in that spirit that I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is unfortunate, to say the least, that New Clauses 2 and 9 were not selected. The clauses that we are discussing cover the same

issues but in a less specific way. I am disappointed that they do not go further. All that they do is to transfer powers which already exist from the European Court to the Scottish courts. I should have been happier if there had been an attempt to include more specific and, in some areas, more important rights. I suspect that we should enter areas of difficulty and controversy if we tried to do that but we should try to grapple with these problems rather than merely transfer existing powers.
The arguments for devolution or independence have two strands. One strand is the allocation of resources and the other the method of Government. The new clauses and new schedule involve both those strands, although the sections dealing with the economic problems are shorter.
The economic argument about devolution is totally unacceptable to me and my constituents. If devolution brings Scotland extra resources and that is at the expense of the rest of the United Kingdom, it is not on for me or for my constituents.
Many people say that if Scotland is to have the lion's share of United Kingdom assets, such as the oil, it must be prepared to carry the lion's share of United Kingdom liabilities. It should have responsibility for the national debt and possibly for our NATO commitment. Northern Leland is closer to Scotland than it is to England.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is it not rather strange for the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) to talk about the selfish Scots? When I was in Parliament for the first time the argument was that Scotland was too poor for self-government. Is the argument now that Scotland is too rich?

Mr. Bennett: We should treat the people of the United Kingdom equally and not indulge in squalid squabbling.
It is suggested that there should be free commerce. The economic argument that Scotland should have extra resources will be totally discredited. Devolution should be opposed if people argue in that manner. The only justification for devolution is if it involves an attempt to reform and improve the method of government. That is why I am disappointed with these new


clauses. They do not get down to reforming and improving the method of government. The only way in which a valid case for devolution can be made out is by arguing that it would improve the quality of government and give ordinary people more control over the factors which affect their lives. We should be questioning the Bill on these grounds and asking how far the legislation improves the rights of individuals.
One of the major frustrations for my constituents and for the people of Scotland is that the United Kingdom Government do not control many of the things that they would like to control. We accept that the Government cannot control the weather—although many people blame them for it—but people feel that the Government have not enough power over jobs, multinational companies and world prices.
The truth is that the United Kingdom Government cannot devolve powers which affect many people, because they have not got the power to devolve them. We cannot expect the Assembly to be able to take over those matters which cause frustration to individuals. The proposed devolution will not improve the situation. I firmly believe that devolved government could make a major contribution towards improving government for many people if the new Assembly looked at those areas which cause frustration.
I checked through my correspondence this morning. I have letters about jobs, housing, tax and social security. Half of those letters involve complaints about decisions. Most of them deal with the frustration experienced by those who cannot obtain clear answers or information and from those who do not know what is their position. We must attempt to improve government in that area. We must make government more understandable and acceptable to individuals. We should not concentrate on the rules.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) aware that in my local Press at the weekend there was a letter from the secretary of the local Scottish National Party which said that one of the attractions of my Government's Assembly was that it would do away with regional

government? Does my hon. Friend accept that that is the reverse of devolution, as he understands it, and that an Assembly would centralise rather than devolve many of the decisions about which he is talking?

Mr. Bennett: To most of my constituents it does not make much difference whether they have to come to London or go next door to find a bureaucrat, although it may save them money. What is important is to get away from the bureaucratic process. It will not make much difference whether one transfers powers from London to Edinburgh or from one office in Edinburgh to another. The important thing is the way in which the powers are carried out and the amount of information that the bureaucrats are prepared to give.
Both the Bill and the new clauses lay down powers and restraints, but they offer little positive guidance about how the new Assembly should work. That is the key issue—not whether it has power or restraints.
From discussions on earlier clauses I know that the Minister of State believes that the good sense of the people of Scotland should decide how the Assembly should work. He believes that it is inappropriate for the United Kingdom Parliament to suggest how it should work, perhaps because we are so inept and inefficient. On the other hand, because of our experience we could make constructive suggestions. Before the Bill becomes law, we should set out how the Assembly should function in practice. Unless the basic standing orders of the Assembly are set out before the referendum campaign how will the Scottish people know how the Assembly will work and how it will affect them? They could end up with an Assembly which is unacceptable to them.
As the Bill stands, 40 per cent. of the Scottish people must approve devolution, but only 30 per cent. of the people might vote in the first election. In practice, the party in control of the Assembly could poll only 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the vote. What are the safeguards for the 80 per cent. of people who did not vote or who voted for a party which does not control the


Assembly? Many of those people who have a vote for the Assembly might want a devolved government if they knew its powers.
In new Clauses 2 and 9 we have tried to set out some of the positive things that should be done. Once the Assembly is set up there is a danger that it will have to deal with political hot potatoes. It will want to act to deal with them and it will be reluctant to spend a long time deciding on standing orders. It will not be sympathetic to trouble makers from an opposition party. There will be pressure to race on with the standing orders. It could race ahead by imitating Westminster. But it could, knowing that Westminster is unsatisfactory, race into a set of alternatives which are equally unworkable and impractical.
The amendments list a whole series of fundamental rights, but those rights already exist. All we are talking about is transferring the rights from the European Court to Scotland. However, we should be putting into the Bill at this stage fundamental rights of the greatest importance. The most important are, that the public should have access to all official documents, that the Press and public should have the right to attend all meetings of the Assembly and that every member of the Assembly has to sign a statutory declaration of interest before being permitted to speak in the Assembly.
Those rights are not at present available at Westminster. It is difficult for the Westminster Government to make easy access to all documents available to members of the public because of the security problem. Such a problem would not exist with a devolved form of government. The Scottish Assembly will have very little responsibility for security matters. It will be possible therefore for the Bill to set out these fundamental principles of open government, and not to leave them for the Scottish Assembly to devise afterwards.
We should be saying that we here at Westminster are involved, as a Parliament, in improving the form of Scottish government, that we admit that the present system of government is not successful in communicating information between governors and governed, and that we want to improve this process and therefore will make a firm commitment to open government. I hope that the Minis

ter will say what is being done in Scotland to prepare standing orders for the Assembly, and will explain what pressure he is putting forward to get the new Assembly committed to a form of open government which guarantees rights of access to all documents, gives equal access to information for all members of the Assembly, sets out the rights of the Press and the public to attend meetings, and provides for a statutory declaration of members' interests. He should say, if he is not writing those points into the Bill, that he is doing preparatory work so that proposals along those lines can be put to the Assembly.

Mr. Silvester: My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) invited us to take an unentrenched view of this amendment. So unentrenched am I that I shall not be following him into the Lobby. The clause is a grave mistake. It is not true that the Conservative Party is committed to the idea of a Bill of Rights, and I do not believe that we should become so committed by the kitchen door.
It is somewhat naive of my hon. Friend—I do not wish to be rude to him—to say that the purpose of the new clause is to advance further the cause of a Bill of Rights. Although he spent some part of his speech eloquently putting forward the case that would arise if we did not make the amendment in respect of Scotland, the fact is that the motivation for the clause and its likely effect is to take us a step further along the road to a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom. That is something I strenuously oppose.
The pursuit of a Bill of Rights is undesirable for several reasons. First, the idea of a Bill of Rights is mistaken. My hon. Friend says that both parties are committed to the European Convention. That is true. He says that we have not queried it. But I can assure him that some of us have been trying to, but those efforts do not get much public attention. It is about time, since the matter has now been raised, to bring this question into the open.
The trouble with a Bill of Rights is that it is vague and general. Although I hope we are all united in this House on the idea that we should defend the liberties of the subject, those liberties are specific. As


soon as one treats them as being general one gets into political matters.

Mr. Fairbairn: There is a specific difficulty with a Bill of Rights in the matter of which my hon. Friend is speaking. While the rights are general, so, of course, are the rights of the citizen in the common law. The difficulty arises when one attempts to enshrine the principles of the common law in the absolute straitjacket of statute.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Silvester: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I shall be coming to that point.
During the previous interchange my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby did not answer the point which lies at the root of this matter, namely, that there is an inevitable conflict between the powers of the judiciary and Parliament. In this country, for reasons for which others may have their own explanations, we have been the subject of more representations to the Commission on Human Rights in Europe than any other country. Yet it is fair to say, without being immodest, that this country is not the worst in these matters among the signatories to the convention.
One of the reasons for that state of affairs is that we have in operation the three most important elements in maintaining human rights. They are, first, vigorous media, secondly, a vigorous Parliament, and, thirdly, an active judiciary. All these produce circumstances in which people who feel they have a grievance and feel they are up against some encroachment on their rights have a means of expressing that grievance, and it can be taken to the European Court.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Member explain to me—I am not a lawyer—how, given these three factors, it is that enshrining human rights in the "straitjacket of statute" diminishes those rights?

Mr. Silvester: That is not what I said. I do not think the process diminishes those rights, but nor does it help them. It diminishes the power of this place and other existing bodies to watch over those rights and to see that they are brought

up to date and safeguarded. Let me pursue the matter further and perhaps I can give the hon. Member an answer.
The items in the schedule have to be interpreted. We do not have to guess on that score because we can look at what has happened in the European Convention. I tabled a Question to the Foreign Secretary on 23rd January asking what cases Britain was currently being asked to answer at the Commission. He listed 38 such cases. These excluded the Isle of Man, which has gone forward to the court. The reply refers to the preliminary stage. The answer was as follows:

(a) aspects of prison treatment and prison conditions;
(b) deportation;
(c) corporal punishment in schools;
(d) the law relating to homosexuality;
(e) trial procedures;
(f) the closed shop;
(g) alleged discrimination in the provision of schools;
(h) Mental Health Review Tribunals and conditions in Broadmoor Hospital;
(i) housing in Guernsey;
(j) the postal service;
(k) insurance companies legislation;
(l) the Incitement to Disaffection Act 1974;
(m) The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provision Act 1975);
(n)vaccination of Children.
—[Official Report, 23rd January 1978; Vol. 952. c. 448.]
That list includes a great many subjects which would not be regarded as suitable for judicial decision. They would be essentially political decisions which would be taken either by a local authority or by Parliament, and they should not be sent away to 13 foreign judges for decision on our behalf.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby says that it is less embarrassing for the Scottish courts to do it here than for the matter to be dealt with in Europe. But that is not the point. The question is whether we should subject ourselves to that procedure at all. If the answer to that is that we should not, what is the point of enshrining it in a statute of the United Kingdom for the purpose of "advancing further the cause".
It seems to me that, by accident in a sense, the subject has come to the surface at last, and it is worth pursuing it. As I understand the position—any lawyer will correct me if I am wrong—we are bound by treaty to the convention. I think that


we can get out of the convention in six months if we wish to do so. The effective part of the convention, the part which bites to the embarrassment of Her Majesty's Government, is that relating to automatic jurisdiction and the private petition. It has been renewed from time to time, and was last renewed for only five years, until 1981. In the period until 1981 we have at least an opportunity to investigate whether we wish to go further along this road.
Without making any comment on the merits or demerits of birching, I suspect that the Isle of Man case will concentrate people's minds very considerably on this matter. I understand the motives of my hon. Friend and respect them, but he cannot evade the point by saying that the position will be slightly better because it will be dealt with in Scotland. That is not really the point at issue.
The point at issue is whether this House—or, in this case, the Scottish Assembly—should be able to make laws which most people would regard as political, and which may, in the case of some of those affected, involve Executive decisions rather than judicial decisions. Such matters are in any case covered by the common law of the land, which looks into matters of fairness. The question is whether we should have these matters handled in that way or whether we are to abrogate the decisions to a court across the seas.
The whole business of human rights has developed in a way which people have not really comprehended. There is another covenant, based in the United Nations, which is not yet fully in operation. The European Parliament has produced a joint declaration, which is not yet effective, but it is asking that it shall be made effective. We shall then be bound by three international arrangements on the question of human rights.
Although the words "human rights" sound splendid, what we really have is a series of generalised statements which have to be interpreted. That interpretation, under the traditional United Kingdom parliamentary system, has been done here in Parliament and in the local authorities. The convention, on the other hand, requires that it should be done elsewhere by unelected people whose cultural and other backgrounds may be quite different from our own.
Although I understand that the motive of my hon. Friend—I sympathise with him—is to get at that root point, I think that, far from the new clause being such that we are getting something good out of something bad, we are taking an opportunity to deal with a minor problem in a bad Bill, and producing something which is infinitely worse.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I shall not follow in detail the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), with much of which I agree. At least he has brought the discussion to the crucial point, which is not so much whether people should have rights but rather which body is the best to enshrine, preserve and extend those rights. Should it, on the one hand, be the courts or, on the other hand, should it be Parliament in one form or another?
Although, in moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), tried to deal with these points, almost as an afterthought at the end of his remarks, he did not deal with them satisfactorily. He dealt with them, of course, from a lawyer's point of view, as one would expect.
I suppose that much of this discussion really originates from the assumption, enshrined in the American constitution, that as soon as one has a written constitution, in whatever form, it becomes important to build in a Bill of Rights which enshrines the rights of the citizens of the country. I do not think that there is any necessary correlation between a written constitution and the need for a Bill of Rights, neither do I necessarily say that because, we have the Scotland Bill, which is about to go on to the statute book, somehow or other we are transformed into a situation in which we have a written constitution.
It seems to me that this measure is no different in principle from measures such as the Treaty of Accession, or other measures which affect our constitution, such as the Parliament Act 1911, or subsequent Parliament Acts which affect our constitution and are Acts of this House which can be amended or repealed by this House. I hope that that principle is still accepted and respected by all of us.
Whether we have a written constitution seems to be rather a bogus question,


and certainly not one that is entirely relevant to the decision whether we should have a Bill of Rights. It would be an interesting exercise—but one that would take far too long—to try to compare the position here with that in another Western country, such as the United States. The United States has had a Bill of Rights over a period of 200 years. It has had a written constitution. Our country, with the provisos that I have made, has no written constitution and no Bill of Rights.
It would be interesting to compare the two countries and to discuss whether individual rights have been better preserved in the one country than in the other. I should be quite happy to enter such a debate, and I have no doubt at all where my judgment would be. It would be that rights have been better preserved and enshrined in this country, which has not a written constitution and has not a Bill of Rights.
The Americans have discovered a major problem in the development of their constitution. In theory, there were to be three equal components which could check and balance one another, the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. The legislature is relatively simple to change, to alter and to influence. The President is considerably more difficult to change, alter, influence and remove. As we know well enough, the President has been removed only once. But it is almost impossible to change, alter, influence or remove the judiciary. Usually, if it is ever suggested in any Western country that the judiciary is wrong in any respect whatsoever, people adopt the kind of cathedral countenance that brooks no opposition and suggests that something tantamount to blasphemy has occurred.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In making a comparison between the United States and other Western countries, would it not be better, in trying to set up a new form of government, not to compare and balance one system with the other but to cull the best out of each and put them together? Does my hon. Friend agree that the right of individuals in the United States to inspect the vast majority of Government documents is a very useful one?

Mr. Grocott: I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend with great interest and

agreed with much of what he said. His proposed new clause, which was not selected, is quite different from the one proposed by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby and comes much closer to what the hon. Member for Withington referred to as specific rights being written into a document so that it can be understood and the courts have very little difficulty in interpreting it. As a rule, courts manage to find difficulty in interpreting all sorts of simple things, but theoretically they should not have great difficulty in interpreting the rights of access to information in my right hon. Friend's new clause. That is a very different proposition from the generalised one that is before the House at the moment.
As to the American constitution, I believe that over the years the Supreme Court and the judiciary have not been very effective in extending human rights. The Supreme Court has been very unresponsive to the way in which people's views change and develop. Although there are certain rights which are valid for all ages and all conditions of men, there are other rights which develop as society develops. The American Supreme Court has been very slow in adjusting to these kinds of developments.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is not the hon. Gentleman being a little facile in dealing with the matter in this way? Is it fair to make this comparison when we are talking about a country which has had all the problems of an expanding frontier, all the melange of numerous races and all the problems of a very large minority black population? Is it not remarkable how much the United States has achieved in that context and against that background?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Grocott: I shall not develop this discussion. As I have said, it would be an interesting debate, but we could not possibly follow it through now. There are all sorts of difficulties in making this kind of comparison. That I touched on it at all was because it was repeatedly suggested that because one had a written constitution one must have a Bill of Rights to safeguard the people's rights. I do not accept that.
I return to what seems to me to be the central point of this discussion—whether in this country the rights of the people


are better secured by generalised Bills of Rights in the way that the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby said was to be started in Scotland and would develop thereafter in the rest of the United Kingdom, or whether they are better preserved in Parliament and by Acts that Parliament passes and are then interpreted in the courts.
I have no cathedral countenance that I adopt when I refer to the courts of this country. Anyone who is interested in the liberty of the individual and the development of rights knows the posisition. I shall not dwell at length on trade union rights, but I think of all sorts of important rights which we have come to accept today but which were not accepted a century ago and were very slow to be accepted by the courts. I have no great respect for the courts and their ability to keep pace with changing notions of what liberty should be and with the demands of a modern society.
One of the great problems with the judiciary is that it is almost impossible to alter its composition, let alone criticise it. It remains very old. We talk about the retirement age for everyone but judges. The judiciary remains appallingly unrepresentative in a social sense. I do not think that it should be completely socially representative. That would be a ludicrous proposition. But I understand that every High Court judge had a private education, went to public school.

Mr. Brittan: That is not true.

Mr. Grocott: Perhaps there is an exception of one. Perhaps there has been a recent appointment. There is always a tame member of the Opposition who is allowed in to make it look convincing. But the judiciary is hopelessly unrepresentative. It has no concept of the problems and economic hardships of most of the people. It has no concept even of the problems of families bringing up their children and sending them to State schools.

Mr. Stokes: Utter rubbish. Seditious nonsense.

Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman should do his homework. What I have just said is incontrovertible. I expected the hon. Gentleman to get hot under the collar. I shall not bother to respond to

him, because he is greeted with a certain amount of amusement here. As the hon. Gentleman knows well enough, if he looks at the facts he will find that it is incontestable—I say this slowly so that perhaps he will understand—that the higher echelons of the judiciary are hopelessly unrepresentative. They are representative simply of a tiny, very wealthy, very privileged elite. In a democracy that cannot go on indefinitely. It cannot inspire confidence among the population as a whole.
When I look to the judiciary to safeguard my rights or the rights of my constituents, although the House has many limitations, as have legislatures generally, I much prefer to see those rights cared for by the proceedings of Parliament with all its faults than in the higher echelons of the judiciary.

Mr. Raison: rose

Mr. Grocott: I have spoken for long enough and should come to a conclusion.
If legislation were introduced to construct a legislature like the House of Commons, we should be terrified of what we were doing. The opposition would go on indefinitely, because to give such a body the powers that the House has would be a terrifying prospect. There is no limit to what we can do. There is nothing to stop the House declaring the Conservative Party illegal or extending its own life for 100 years, indefinitely or for whatever period might seem convenient.
In theory, at least, we should be very fearful about entrusting the rights of the people of this country or anyone else to a legislature unchecked as the House of Commons is. But I believe that in practice it has been checked and is checked, that in practice the country's culture and history have meant that there are fairly well recognised boundaries within which the House operates, fairly well recognised rights which the House preserves. At the end of the day the public have the right to remove hon. Members and change the composition of the House, whereas they have no such right with regard to the judiciary.
Therefore, I much prefer to see my rights enshrined in decisions of the House, not the higher courts, and


accordingly I hope that the clause will be rejected.

Mr. Russell Johnston: This has already been a stimulating and instructive debate. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is to be congratulated both on raising the matter and on the way in which he did it. The debate looks like being a good ending to what has been in the main a good-humoured and interesting Committee stage.
From the Liberal point of view the question is not whether a Bill of Rights is acceptable per se but whether it is appropriate to introduce the change in this Bill. I want to concentrate on that matter rather than on the more basic question whether a Bill of Rights is a good thing to have. The hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) and Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) concentrated on that, but we know that there are in the House strong—I will not use the word "intransigent"—opponents of that concept. They say, as did the hon. Member for Withington, that it is better that human rights are protected in this place or in an Assembly rather than that they be protected by X number of judges, possibly, as he said, "of a cultural and other background perhaps different from our own", making judgments.
We on the Liberal Bench do not accept that. That is perhaps most simply evidenced by the fact that two attempts at a Bill of Rights have been made from this Bench, one by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and one by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) under the Ten Minutes Rule, the latter being entirely based on the European Convention on Human Rights. There is also the Bill currently being considered by a Select Committee in the House of Lords—a Bill introduced by my noble Friend. Lord Wade.
With all respect to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, I do not think that we advance the argument by hurling generalised abuse at the judiciary, as the hon. Gentleman did, without very much specific justification. I am prepared to listen to any amount of specific justification for anything, but I become bored by generalised abuse. I deeply suspect

people who state that anything is absolutely incontestable, as the hon. Gentleman did. As a politician and a Liberal, I do not think that there is anything in this world that is absolutely incontestable. When I hear people say that, I suspect them far more deeply than any judge, however venerable he may be.
I return to the issue whether we should enshrine a Bill of Rights in this Bill. Essentially the arguments against such a proposition—I dare say that the Minister of State will develop this later—have to a degree already been tackled by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby. They are, first, that it would not be sensible or wise that there should be a Bill of Rights in Scotland and not in the rest of the United Kingdom; secondly, that the matter is under discussion in the Select Committee of the House of Lords; and, thirdly, that there is the Government's consultative document.
Let us take the first argument—that it is wrong to take a step of this kind in Scotland alone. We are essentially bringing into Scottish domestic law the European Convention of Human Rights. It is not a question of changing the law. The law is to be the same. It is a question of the recourse of the litigant being different, so that in Scotland—I assume that this is right, although I am not a lawyer—the Scotsman or Scotswoman would be able to go to the Scottish courts and the European Court, whereas if the litigant were resident in England or Wales he would be able to go only to the European Court, because the convention is not, as yet, enshrined in domestic law.

Mr. John Smith: It is fair to say that there would be a further difference. The activities of the United Kingdom Parliament and the United Kingdom Government, in so far as they related to England and applied to English citizens, would not be constrained in any way, while the activities of the Scottish Assembly and Executive dealing with Scottish matters would be constrained.

Mr. Johnston: I am not a lawyer, but is it not the case that the activities of the Executive stemming from this House are, to a degree, already constrained by the mere fact that we are a signatory of the European Convention of Human Rights?

Mr. Brittan: Does the hon. Member not agree that it is rather surprising to


hear a United Kingdom Minister say that the Government would not be constrained in any way by the fact that they were a signatory to an international convention?

Mr. John Smith: That is a perhaps innocent misinterpretation of what I said. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) knows that what I am talking about is the direct applicability of the courts to the matter. It is quite a different thing to be constrained by the domestic courts and to have to go through the rather particular and sometimes difficult procedures of petitioning the European Convention of Human Rights. But there would be this difference, would there not, that the United Kingdom Government would be responsible for education and would be under no inhibition while the Scottish Administration, responsible for education north of the border, would be under an inhibition, a constraint. That is an important difference.

Mr. Johnston: It is a difference. I would be the last to deny that, as I would be the last to deny that the likelihood of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby being innocent is remote. I do not see how—and this relates to an intervention I made in the speech of the hon. Member for Withington—this diminishes the human rights of the individual. It is the object of the exercise to protect these. Given that I accept what the Minister says I do not see how this represents a negative disadvantage for the citizen.
6.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby argued—I would go along with him in this—that in a political sense, if a Bill of Rights were accepted as part of the Scottish settlement it would generate political pressure for a similar piece of legislation to be passed in this House, so that conditions were equivalent in all parts of the Kingdom. It does not appear to me that anyone who has so far spoken has suggested that to have the two systems out of kilter would make all that much difference in practical terms for the individual. That is why I begin to wonder to what extent this change would produce anything very dramatic in terms of its immediate effect, although I accept

that there would be a dramatic long-term impact.
The Minister of State intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby to make a point which I did not quite understand. If I mention it now he may clarify the matter later. The Minister told the hon. Gentleman, in a somewhat critical fashion, that he was not introducing a Bill of Rights but simply introducing the European Convention of Human Rights into Scottish domestic law. I did not follow that intervention or the point of the argument since the European Convention of Human Rights is a Bill of Rights. The fact is that the Conservative Front Bench has decided that it was the best and simplest thing to adopt an existing and agreed Bill of Rights and apply it to Scotland. That is, as the Minister knows, the same approach that we adopted in discussions with the Labour Government on this matter.

Mr. John Smith: What I was putting to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was that it might, perhaps, be better if a Bill of Rights were specifically designed to deal with the Scottish situation. I wonder whether it is appropriate to take the European Convention for Scotland only and prohibit the Assembly from introducing slavery, which is an unlikely event, given the responsibilities which the Assembly has for such things as education, housing and health.

Mr. Johnston: With all respects to the Minister—and I do respect him—I do not see that Bills of Rights are meant to be specially applicable to particular groups. There are basic universal human rights. Even if it is not a common thing to have slavery in Scotland, I am not at all satisfied that there is any reason why it should be excluded from a Bill of Rights for Scotland or the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: Was it not the hero of the Scottish National Party, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, after whom it called its so-called intellectual society, who believed in domestic slavery—for the Highlands?

Mr. Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that historical interlude.

Mr. John Smith: Perhaps the hon. Member would consider the point that, post-devolution, some parts of the government of Scotland will be dealt with by the Assembly—education, housing, and the like—while other parts will be dealt with by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament—trade, the economy, industrial relations, and the like. To introduce a Bill of Rights in this form merely offers protection in respect of the devolved subjects and does not cover the whole range of government in Scotland. Would it not be better, if we are moving to a Bill of Rights, to do the whole thing at one time for the United Kingdom and to put all citizens in the same position with respect to any so-called protection which is given?

Mr. Johnston: That is the nub argument—that we should not do it in one part of the United Kingdom but rather should apply it throughout the whole of the kingdom. As a variant of the central argument, the counter argument to that surely is that this matter has been discussed for some time and that to have it enshrined in legislation incontestibly—that is a proper use of the word—produces the political motive force for something actually to be done in the remainder of the United Kingdom. That surely is an argument for such a concept for those who favour a Bill of Rights as such.

Mr. Raison: Is not the force of the Minister of State's argument that perhaps it is not the best way to introduce such a thing to introduce it in only part of the United Kingdom rather than in the United Kingdom as a whole? When one is considering how to vote on this issue, if the Minister were to say that it was the intention of the Government to introduce such a provision for the country as a whole, one might well think this amendment to be an inadequate provision. It would be helpful if the Minister could enlighten us about the position of the Government.

Mr. Johnston: That point is extremely well made. For those who favour a Bill of Rights as such and are anxious to see such a measure incorporated in the law of the United Kingdom, it would be better if it were to be so incorporated rather than done in a partial way. I sympathise with the hon. Member for

Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), but I doubt whether the Minister is in a position to give the sort of assurance he asks for.

Mr. John Smith: The position of the Government on the question whether the convention should be incorporated into domestic law in the United Kingdom is that the question is still under consideration. A discussion paper has been issued, and the matter is being discussed by a Select Committee of the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman would not expect any Government to come to a conclusion in advance of any of those considerations.

Mr. Johnston: As I have said, the fact that Governments discuss things is not a major reassurance to me.
It has been said that the Assembly could introduce a Bill of Rights itself if it were so minded. I do not think that that is an argument particularly one way or the other. It is simply a statement of what power the Assembly has. But if it is contested that there might be a likelihood of the Assembly introducing one, I would have thought that to do it at once might be a better course of action.
From the Liberal point of view, one of the favourable aspects of including Amendment No. 557 would be that it would provide one of the essentials of a federal approach which is a framework of legal protection for human rights and which, to us, is a logical and sensible thing to do and paves the way for further improvement to the Bill. I shall be inclined to support the amendment unless the Minister can produce more pertinent arguments against it than I have heard so far. It is not enough to say that the matter is under discussion, that it would be better to do everything at once, and so on. I think that the opportunity for Scotland to lead in this matter is one that we should not dismiss lightly.

Mr. Rooker: I apologise for having had to leave the debate for a brief period, thereby missing a couple of speeches.
Like the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), I make no complaint about the way this subject has been introduced. Although it is taking up a fair amount of time, it is an important subject and I welcome the debate, but for different reasons from those of the Conservatives. I am basically opposed to a written constitution and to a Bill of


Rights. My contribution to the Scotland Bill would have been New Clause 2, but, unfortunately, it was not selected. By implication, therefore, I accept that the House of Commons should impose limitations and restrictions and conditions on the way the Assembly operates. My view is all laid out in New Clause 2 for anyone to read.
I put down New Clause 2 for the same reasons and motives as the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) spoke of this subject; that is to say, I regarded it as the thin end of the wedge in the United Kingdom. I am aware of the argument that my hon. Friend the Minister of State may use. He may take up the point I made in an earlier intervention, that it may be possible for the Assembly to legislate a Bill of Rights of sorts for its own domestic purposes. In the same way, he would have met my argument on New Clause 2, that the Scottish Assembly should legislate for greater access to official documents by the Scottish electorate.
The details of the proposed Bill of Rights in Amendment No. 557, the related new schedule, concern me. I shall not go into detail, but there are certain contradictions in it. I am not clear, for example, whether Amendment No. 557 is an exact replica, without any additions other than references to Scotland, of the European Convention.

Mr. Brittan: The answer to that is "Yes". A few changes in wording have been made in order to include the word "Scotland". Also, one or two articles in the convention are not included because they relate to matters so plainly outside the powers of the Assembly and the Executive that there would be no point in putting them in. There are in it some points that are probably outside the powers anyway, but I do not think that that matters. There is nothing added from any source other than the European Convention.

Mr. Rooker: There is an anomaly in Article 10. Several times in the House over the last four years we have debated industrial relations legislation, particularly as it affects the individual problems of trade unions. We have heard constant reiteration by the Tories that there should be a right not to belong to a union, just

as there is a right to belong. Indeed, that was incorporated in the Industrial Relations Act 1971.
I therefore had a wry smile when I read Article 10, which says that there shall be
the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions…".
There is no mention there of a right not to belong. I could not believe that the Tory Party, having raised these fundamental human rights matters in the amendment, had not taken the opportunity to put in the right not to belong to a union.

Mr. Ian Gow: I refer the hon. Gentleman to Article 8, which says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion".
The hon. Gentleman will recollect that it was the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act that removed the conscience clause which used to exist lot those who did not want to join a union. The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point. I would have expected my right hon. and hon. Friends to have that in mind when they included Article 8.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Rooker: With respect, I do not think that that meets the point. If the new schedule in Amendment No. 557 is an exact replica of the Convention, with the few additions or omissions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and if it has been so important during the past four years—in fact, from the legislation of 1971—for the Conservative Party to believe in certain rights and, latterly, to believe that there should be new rights for the Scottish electorate as a means of paving the way for legislation covering the United Kingdom as a whole, the idea being to sell it to the House of Commons here and to the United Kingdom electorate, I should have expected the Conservative Party to use the European Convention and in this context pursue the policy which it has advocated in the past.
The Tories cannot use that argument with reference to Scotland, with the idea of selling it later to the United Kingdom, if they do not include the right not to belong to a trade union.

Mr. Brittan: If that be put as a question, I can answer it quite simply. No further rights are included, even though one might want those rights to exist, precisely because, to be a constitutional enactment, the Bill must command all party support. We are proposing nothing here which could prevent that support. Because all parties support the European Convention and there is agreement at least on a common core of rights, we have set the matter out in this way. There are items not in it, items I should like to see, and I am sure that there are not in it items which the hon. Gentleman would like to see. Those matters should be dealt with by legislation, passed on a partisan basis, if necessary, but for constitution making one has reluctantly to accept the lowest common denominator of agreed rights.

Mr. Silvester: May I try to help further? There is at present a case before the European Court on the closed shop, arising out of the convention, so at least some lawyers think that it is covered by the convention as written.

Mr. Rooker: I shall not labour the point. At least we have it on record that the right to belong to a trade union is accepted as a lowest common denominator by the Conservative Party. Some of us on this side have been in some doubt about that in recent months. However, I think that I have made my point on Article 10, and I accept what the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby has said about his self-imposed limitations in drafting Amendment No. 557.
I come now to two other matters. I suspect that there is a contradiction raised by Article 11, which refers to the right to marry and found a family according to national laws, and Article 13:
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth…shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion…
With those two married together, I reckon that there is a contradiction to what the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition has been saying in recent days, and I find it difficult to square the circle between her argument and what appears in the amendment.
I come now to my last point on detail. Article 9 lays down that everyone shall

have the right to freedom of expression and that
This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information …
I regard this as the most important part of the proposal before us. It was implied in my earlier comments on my New Clause 2 that I consider that the right to receive information, especially official information, is a supreme right. Indeed, I have come to the conclusion over the past four years that it is about the only safeguard left for democracy.
I cannot wholly accept that we can leave the safeguarding of democracy to the other House along the Corridor or to the courts, and I certainly do not accept that we can leave it to a Bill of Rights in the sense in which that is proposed here, since we know that one Parliament can overturn what another has done, a Government can overturn what a previous Government did, and even the present Government could overturn something which we enacted last year.
There is no such entrenched right as I wish to see. Even if the Bill is enacted and is put to the Scottish people in a referendum, although that would in some ways be an entrenchment of the proposed Bill of Rights, I should not be happy about it, because the House of Commons could overturn or amend any legislation in the form of the proposed new schedule. The House could amend the schedule, it could remove rights, and it could add rights without going back to the Scottish people in a referendum, because that is the normal way by which one amends an entrenched Bill of Rights.
Therefore, I do not regard this proposal as the protection of freedoms, of democracy and of individual rights, as hon. Members opposite suggest that it is. I want there to be a right to know what is going on, and not just for Members of Parliament or Members of the Scottish Assembly or the Executive. They will not have all that many rights, any more than we have here.
There are well over 100 subjects on which Members of Parliament are not even allowed to ask Questions, yet we are supposed to be the guardians of democracy, acting as a check on the Executive and representing our constituents.
Article 9 sets forth the freedom to receive and to impart information, and I should like to see the devolution Bill being used as a pathfinder for the rest of the United Kingdom in this sole respect, on which there is a Government commitment. We have no Government commitment about a Bill of Rights, but we have a specific Government commitment about freedom of information. We have had it from the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, and it was in the Labour Party manifesto on which we won the last election—a commitment that we should have a reform of the law governing information so that information would be made available unless the law said it should not be, as opposed to the present position, where the law says that everything is secret unless we legislate otherwise.
In my view, that would be a useful addition to the present Bill. It is a tragedy that it is not given enough emphasis even in the proposed new schedule setting out the Bill of Rights.
I imagine that the Assembly will have a lot of problems on its hands when it starts. This place has problems enough, too. I am sure that the devolved areas of Government will remain for a long time in uncertainty, in contrast to what I want in the way of rights and obligations.
We ought to direct our attention to trying to ensure that the Scottish, devolved Government will be a model institution. I am ambivalent about it myself. To be honest, I do not know how I shall vote on Third Reading; but I should like to think that, if the Bill is set on its way, being given approval by the Scottish people, we shall be setting up a system of devolved Government that will be a model not only to the rest of the United Kingdom but to the rest of the world.

Mr. Dalyell: I remind my hon. Friend of a topic in which both he and I have been interested, namely, the proposed development of a refinery at Nigg on the Cromarty Firth. Does that not illustrate one of the difficulties, since there would be many people who would say that it is the business of the Assembly and others who would say that it is the business of the United Kingdom Parliament? This

is another of the grey areas. In the matter of getting information, as in so many other things, there will be difficulty.

Mr. Rooker: That is right. In fact, without such proposals as I wished to put forward in New Clause 2, I remain extremely unhappy. As my hon. Friend reminds me, we had the experience almost two years ago of the attempt to pass through the House the Cromarty petroleum Bill, and because of other matters it was then taken out of the hands of the House. One of the problems then—it is still a great problem today—was the obtaining of information. It becomes a barrier to the working of democracy.
I was saying that, although I am not too sure that I shall vote for it in the end, I should want the Scottish Assembly, if it is to be set up, to be a model of democracy.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Of course. That is our wish and intention.

Mr. Rooker: I am not imputing motives to anyone. Indeed, I go so far as to say that there are grounds for thinking that we may have considerably fewer problems in the workings and openness of government in Scotland if certain sections of certain Scottish political parties do not get control of the Assembly. I shall be no more specific than that, before I have the rap down on me from north of the border. As I say, I am imputing no motives to hon. Members on the SNP Bench. They made clear to me a long time ago that they supported the intention behind the new clause which I wished to move calling for greater access to information for the Scottish people.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that there are many good intentions in the House about reforming our procedures? However, because of the everyday major political problems that face us we tend to shelve the responsibility of getting these things right. Once the Scottish Assembly is in being, even though most of its Members will have good intention about setting up good procedures and good standing orders, they will tend to put it off and become entrenched in the ways of this Parliament.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend has summed up the situation extremely well.
The access to information is not only important to the legislators. It is far more important to those outside this Committee as a safeguard to democracy. Pressure groups, aggrieved individuals, the Press and the other media should all have access to information. This would do the media's job for them in many ways. It is quite true that many of the great issues which Members of this Committee try to take up come about because some journalist somewhere has been tipped off and has taken the time to dig deep into the murky waters of Whitehall. We tend to get bogged down in the business of trying to operate the legislature without proper Standing Orders.
In setting up a new legislation we haw the opportunity to establish procedures for open government. There is a case for the Scottish Assembly taking the proposal in New Clause 4 and in Amendment No. 557, and if not legislating this for itself, at least taking on board the proposals in it and legislating a Bill of Rights giving access to information for Scottish local government.
It took a great deal of pressure from the House to get even the committee rooms of local government in England and Wales open to the public. The history of smaller democratic bodies, such as local government—and I do not want this to happen in the Scottish Assembly—shows that these bodies tend to make themselves closed societies. It is very easy for them not to pass legislation opening access to their deliberations and giving their electors greater freedoms and greater representation. There is an impetus not to do that, and this is what concerns me most.
The history of this country in expanding democracy bears out that point at every stage. We have a great opportunity in setting up this devolved Assembly—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member knows full well that his proposed New Clause 2 was ruled out of order, yet he is developing the contents of that new clause in too great a depth.

Mr. Rooker: With respect, Sir Myer, it was not ruled out of order. It was simply not selected, and there is a differ

ence. I am not talking about New Clause 2. I am drawing attention to Article 9 in Amendment No. 557 about the freedom to receive and impart information. I have been addressing my remarks specifically to that.
In the interests of greater democracy, and the rights of the Scottish electors, the very concept of a Bill of Rights is to give rights to people outside so that they cannot be abused by an elected body whether it is the House of Commons or the Scottish Assembly. This is what our debate is all about. I have not gone very wide at all. I have not gone into the arguments about the courts not deciding anything. Many hon. Members in this debate have referred to this subject to illustrate their points. I simply mentioned in passing the point about access to information because of the contents of Amendment No. 557.
7.15 p.m.
Even if the Committee does not pass the Bill of Rights clause or any other new clause or any of the amendments proposed, I want the Scottish Assembly to be a model of democracy. That is my intention, and that of my hon. Friends, and there is no reason to believe that it is not the intention of Conservative Members also. The point at issue here is the track record in the past in setting up devolved government, whether by local authorities or anything else. It is better to establish rules and rights to begin with in the original legislation. That is the whole point of passing this amendment and the new clause.
I began by saying that I am opposed to a written constitution in the widest sense because of the role and history of the courts in this country in basically frustrating radical legislation that usually emanates from this side of the Committee. That makes me very suspicious, and because of that I do not want to impose on the Scottish people a Bill of Rights in this devolution Bill. That is not to say that one cannot hope or recommend that after the referendum. If we still have this Bill, these ideas may permeate from this Committee to the Scottish Assembly. One may hope that the Assembly may take on the mantle of democracy which, in many ways, this Committee has cast aside.
The greatest safeguard against this country turning into a corporate State is


the provision of access to official information which does not prejudice the security of the State.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will my hon. Friend agree that one of the principal difficulties with this Bill of Rights clause is that it purports to give freedoms and then substantially modifies them in an entirely negative way? It does not impose on public authorities any positive duties to provide for people's welfare or to give them information to enable them to make their own judgments about the record of the Government, and whether their rights are being properly safeguarded by the Government.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot allow this to develop into a method of getting around the fact that New Clause 2 was not selected, and it was not selected because it was out of order. I cannot allow any discussion on New Clause 2.

Mr. Rooker: I hope, Sir Myer, that you would not want to curtail the debate on a Bill of Rights for the Scottish people. I do not see any problem in having one set of laws for north of the border and another set for south of the border if these are good rights contained in the clause. Hon. Members may wish to use this as an example of how they can make this work in practice and as a means of giving these rights to citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby put forward the thin end of the wedge argument. I do not accept it in that sense, but at the same time I would hope that many other hon. Members would debate this issue fully as far as we are allowed under the guillotine because some of us have heard the word that there is a cosy relationship between the two Front Benches about curtailing the debate on this issue within the guillotine in order to debate Clause 8. I do not want to cut New Clause 8 out of the debate, but I am interested in having a Bill of Rights fully discussed, because it is extremely important.
There are negative procedures in Article 9. A lot of rights are given in the schedule in Amendment No. 557 but then, in one or two sentences at the end it says that if these rights are against

national laws they are not applicable anyway.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend said earlier that he had some doubts whether to vote for Third Reading. If he were to take part in the referendum in Scotland, would it not be crucial to make up his mind which way to vote if there were some Bill of Rights that included the right to their own government and the right to receive all information? Would not that be decisive in the way he would decide to vote? Therefore, would that not be better contained in legislation—rather than in standing orders after he had a chance to vote?

Mr. Rooker: I would not wish to interfere in the referendum campaign in Scotland, but I would feel happier in interfering if there were an entrenched right to know that there would be democratic safeguards. However, there are few safeguards in the Bill, and these new clauses and the new schedule do not appear to include such safeguards.
Perhaps commitments will be given by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that they will seek to ensure that proposals are put forward if a Scottish Assembly is set up. If we were to have such undertakings then, although those matters were not enshrined in legislation, I might feel happier about voting for this Bill on Third Reading.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) for allowing the Committee to have a most interesting debate, the most interesting I have ever heard in this place. I must inform the Minister that my hon. Friends and I in the SNP will support the new clause.
I do not wish in any sense to suggest that I am lacking in recognition of the Minister's dedication in trying to get the Bill through the House, and I pay a genuine tribute to him. I make no apology for being a lawyer. I know that lawyers are not a popular section of society.

Mr. Fairbairn: Nonsense.

Mrs. Ewing: It depends what kind of lawyer one is referring to. I merely seek to point out that this subject is of particular interest to me because of the fact that I am a lawyer.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) asked whether it was sensible to introduce such fundamental matters into the Bill. That is a most important question. I would reply by saying that we have had problems in Scottish private law throughout my lifetime and there has been much call for reform. There have been some reforms, but for 20 years of my legal life there was ground for serious complaint.
Therefore, when we are offered a prospect of reform of private law we should take it, because we do not know when another opportunity will be offered to us. In that sense, although on the face of it it may not be sensible to introduce matters piecemeal in Scotland rather than in the United Kingdom as a whole in relation to the Bill, one must ask when one will ever have such a chance again. For that reason I tend to take the view that it is better to have a Bill of Rights in Scotland alone than no Bill of Rights at all.
I thought that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was generous in his attitude and in taking the view that we should make the Scottish Assembly a model. Why should that not happen? The hon. Gentleman will have the support of the SNP in advancing that proposition. The fact that this formula does not include everything does not seem to me to be a fatal flaw. It is a minimum set of fairly acceptable rights. But the proof of the pudding is that these matters have been found acceptable by a number of legislatures in Western democracy. That does not mean that a legislature cannot take the view "We are sorry that X provision or Y provision is not included, but in your own legislature you can improve the situation". The fact that everything cannot be included is not a serious objection—although one takes that matter seriously—because the matter can be dealt with by a legislature, and could be handled in the Scottish Assembly.
I am assisted in my argument by the fact that recently a House of Lords Select Committee took evidence from all interested parties, including the SNP. We submitted written evidence, which is available in the Library, and we also gave oral evidence a week or so ago. Let me quote from the first paragraph:

The SNP believe that it is right that in the constitution of a state there should be incorporated an enacted declaration of the fundamental rights, privileges and immunities to be guaranteed to every person within the jurisdiction that such rights should be justiciable before the ordinary courts, which should be charged with securing their full and speedy enforcement as against every act whatsoever that infringes them; and that none of the basic rights, privileges and immunities should be subject to abrogation or derogation by ordinary process of legislation".
That sets out our position. It is not new, in the sense that we have set it out in a draft constitution. I have no hesitation in supporting the principle of the new clause.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby say that he thought that Scotland was acting as the trail blazer. We do not mind that happening. If there is a favourable disparity, that is a pleasant change. We have had many unfavourable disparities to put up with in the last 250 years. We do not mind whether the Scots are to be used as guinea pigs. One hon. Member said that we were having to carry the can. Again, we do not mind so long as we identify ourselves with the basic principle.
It was also said that this reform should not be brought in by the kitchen door. It was interesting to have Scotland described as a kitchen door, because a little earlier it was described as the goose that laid golden eggs. I do not mind being a kitchen door or a guinea pig. It is better that we should make a genuine attempt to improve human rights than make no attempt at all.
I see nothing illogical in having a Bill of Rights for Scotland and the North of England, for the simple reason that those of us who are familiar with the practice of Scots law know very well that we have a different legal system. entrenched by the Treaty of Union Therefore, this is not an unusual situation; it is one to which we have become accustomed all our lives.
Many funny comments are made about this situation. It was once said that a Lord Chancellor said to the Lord Advocate of Scotland "Would it not be good thing if the laws of our two countries were the same?". The Lord Advocate replied "Yes. But do you not think that it would be difficult to get the English to adopt Scots law?". We have


been used to this situation. There is nothing startling or fearsome about it.

Mr. Fairbairn: Is it not a little dangerous for the SNP to point out that the Scottish Assembly is the first Assembly in this country that would be required to protect the rights of human individuals in Scotland—rights which are guaranteed and accepted in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Ewing: I suppose that it is a little impertinent to say that the Scots need these rights while the English do not. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that we in Scotland do not recognise human rights, but we all know that Scotland has taken in a vast number of immigrants, including Poles, Flemings, Irish and people from Pakistan.

Mr. Fairbairn: And English.

Mrs. Ewing: And of course the English. We have made them all extremely welcome.
I do not think that it should ever be suggested that Scotland is a place where human rights are not recognised. But I am not prepared to impute to the movers of the amendment the impertinence; I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and take a charitable view that the amendment is an attempt to improve human rights when there is a chance to do so.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I assure the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) that there is no impertinence here at all. I hope to see the European Convention enshrined in the law of the United Kingdom, and I welcome it. I am pleased to hear the Scottish nationalists welcoming the clause, which will blaze the trail in Scotland, as Scotland has frequently blazed a trail in the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). I was using the word "impertinence" only because I was trying to answer the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn).
There is no doubt that the Scots courts are adequate to deal with human rights. It is not because we are in special need

of protection or because there is anything wrong with our courts. It does not mean that because we have a good situation it cannot be bettered. I regard a Bill of Rights as a betterment. I regard it as a step forward and as progress from good to better.
There is no doubt in the minds of the jurists of the world that, rightly or wrongly the Scots legal system is one of the flowers of Scotland's contribution to mankind. It has been much complimented by jurists of all countries. That was perhaps because, having evolved a Roman law system, the European system—after all, we had our law evolved before we entered the Treaty of Union with England—we then had the tempering of a totally different system, the English system, which was a unique and genuine creation of the English. The combination of the two systems created a perfect system of law in many respects, in contract and in criminal law rights. This is recognised all over the world by leading jurists. I speak as one who used to be an academic in happier days gone by.
If we end up with a constitution in which the Scots are to have this extra right, in which the Englishman might have to go to the Court of Human Rights whereas the Scots can immediately have the convention in their domestic law, it would be regrettable. I welcome the intervention of the hon. Member who said that he hoped that this was just a first step.
I have already said that Scots lawyers feel part of Europe. Our law students went to European universities, where the legal studies were conducted in the universal language of Latin. This was done for hundreds of years, when no university in England taught law. If I can remember Blackstone's initial lecture, in either Oxford or Cambridge, he said "This is no subject for gentlemen." That was because the English lawyers were practical men, who thought of the remedy and the precedent rather than the august principles.
It is because we have been exposed to the two systems that we have ended up with the right, perhaps, to blaze the trail. That is why I support the amendment. It is not necessarily true that to have this incorporation of the convention in our domestic law means that w are on the way to a written constitution. I


think that any lawyer, in Scottish terms would bear me out in saying that it is probable that if we had not entered into the Treaty of Union in 1707 we would have had a written constitution. That is almost incontrovertible on the evidence, because it was at that time that we had the flowering of the Institute Writers. They were trying to codify our law because it was the fashion to codify the law of Europe. We were part of Europe and we were following the European tradition in which our lawyers were trained.
It was the Union that in certain respects held back our legal development, because we then came under the umbrella of a system that was not prepared to consider codifying its law or having a written constitution. Therefore, in a certain way it seems to be a proposition that takes us back to some of the basic philosophy about our legal system.

Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. Lady explain why she prefers to have a Westminster-imposed set of circumstances put upon the Scottish Assembly rather than letting the Scottish Assembly legislate about those maters for itself, if it so wishes?

Mrs. Ewing: The expression "Westminster-imposed", as used by the Minister, is very dramatic. Normally I like to agree with him, because I admire him very much. But I think that that comment was a little unworthy of him. We are dealing with a set of human rights laid down in a widely acceptable convention. I would be the first to resent a list of human rights that did not seem to meet the bill in regard to my very strongly held views on human rights. I have studied the Convention on Human Rights. It is a subject on which I speak in the European Parliament. It is a subject that interests me. There does not seem to be anything objectionable. It may not go far enough for me, but there is nothing objectionable in it.
On the question of "Westminster-imposed", the Scots lawyers developed their law partly because they were not averse to borrowing the best ideas. It was often said by our greatest lawyers "Let us borrow the best there is. If it is from England, let us borrow that. If it is from the European system, let us borrow that."

So if we have a good convention of Europe, I have nothing against borrowing it. If it is imposed on the House, what does it matter?

Mr. Raison: Is not the answer to the Minister that some of the things in the Bill of Rights are not devolved subjects? The Scottish Assembly would not be able to adopt the European Convention. For instance, that covers forced labour, which I suppose comes under the heading of employment. It covers the right to join unions, which seems to come under employment, and also race relations, which is not a devolved subject.

Mrs. Ewing: It is delightful for the Conservative Party to take the bold step of increasing the powers of the Scottish Assembly—if that is what it is doing. I do not object to its attempts to do so. But the hon. Member's argument will not help the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby to get the votes tonight.
On the question of parliamentary sovereignty, the squeals of pain that we are hearing about the Bill of Rights to some extent emanate from the fact that this House of Commons and England, in which we are physically standing, is thirled to the theory of parliamentary sovereignty as some sort of holy cow, some sacrosanct principle. I dispute that theory.
In the first place, it is not in accordance with Scottish constitutional law. Admittedly, that was dented when we entered the Treaty of Union. But there is no doubt in my mind that the Scottish constitutional law, long before it was possible in England, gave us the right, for instances, to sue the monarch in the ordinary courts. In the early days of the nationalised industries that meant that one could sue a Post Office van, and practical things of that kind. It was very important to the rights of the citizens. It was established in England, but it was never established in Scotland, because we did not regard the monarch as being above the law. While the English, naturally enough, are proud of the Magna Carta, we are very proud of the Declaration of Arbroath.
The interesting point about the Declaration of Arbroath is that those brave men, risking excommunication as they were all members of the Catholic Church, bravely


faced their Pope and said that they would not be under the domination of England. However, they also said that if the Scottish people so decided, they could expel their king. They said that if the Scottish people decided that he was not looking after their interests, they could expel him, and the words were
choose another in his place.
In the matter of McCormick v. the Lord Advocate in 1953, on the matter of the Queen's Title, again it was established that there was a separate constitutional concept in Scots law about the sovereignty of the people, and not the sovereignty of Parliament. I leave it to those in this Chamber to consider which is the nobler concept and which is, perhaps, the wiser.
Again, I go to the Bill of Rights 1689. That was an English Bill, but, at the same time, we had the Claim of Right in Scotland. The wording may interest hon. Members. It is relevant to this point. The Bill of Rights in England said:
Whereas our King has left the country, therefore we must choose another.
The Claim of Right said:
Whereas the King has acted against the public weal and has been a traitor, we do expel him from the throne and do choose another.
That difference of opinion arose because there is a different concept.
I feel that the new clause is in keeping with the philosophy that has echoed through the centuries in our Scottish constitutional law, where even in the Scottish Parliament, although it was a long time ago, it was possible, on one day that was allotted with due publicity, for people themselves to come in with their petitions, to petition the King in Parliament. That concept has gone. It is an old idea, but it was a very open type of law and it ensured rights.
Now we are asked to consider whether this system in Westminster could be improved by the introduction of a Bill of Rights. Lord Hailsham made a very important speech six months ago, in which he said that the Westminster system was an electoral dictatorship and that it was time that we looked at the possibility of a written constitution. I know that a Bill of Rights is not a written constitution, but it is interesting that a lawyer of Lord

Hailsham's standing is prepared to look along those lines.
In the United States it was partly because of the framing of the constitution—which was done by a Scotsman, Wotherspoon, whose statute stands on Fifth Avenue—that Watergate was exposed. There was the segregation of powers. Without that, it would be very difficult to know whether the same could necessarily have been accomplished in this country. I do not find anything objectionable in the proposal. In the foreword to the discussion paper of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which is available in the Library, Lord Feather said:
No one can afford to be complacent about the adequacy of existing measures for the protection of human rights.
That is obviously what all of us believe. He also said:
Equally important, the subject must be approached with realism as well as hope.
I think that this is a fairly realistic debate on the matter, which has raised hopes, but again, I do not think that anyone will imagine, in a sophisticated modern world, that just because one has a Bill of Rights, that is a panacea for all ills. I do not think that hopes will be raised falsely.
The rather strange so-called reform of local government that we had to put up with in Scotland, the division of Scotland into chunks, each being given so-called autonomy and massive powers, has resulted in the situation that one cannot get a decision out of Scottish local government in the way in which one could get a decision under the old system. There is a need for more protection of human rights, because the average person now cannot feel confident that his right will always be satisfied. In this country we do not have a codified system of administrative law or what many Western democracies guarantee by way of human rights. I see no reason why we should not advance a little on this road.
7.45 p.m.
Lastly, on the international front, there is nothing more important in making the world smaller than ensuring that people who live everywhere in the world have human rights. Many people cannot leave their countries. I have raised this matter in the European Parliament on behalf of


people in the Soviet Union and others have raised matters of human rights affecting people in many countries where even slavery is still in existence. The more that any example can blaze a trail in the direction of being prepared to give at least a minimal set of guarantees, the more difficult it will be for countries that do not recognise human rights to resist the recognition of those rights.
In the international sense, this matter is extremely important. We cannot forget, for instance, that in India, the whole situation in regard to democracy changed overnight. We have seen a betterment in Portugal and Spain. In human rights, things can happen very quickly. At least if everything is guaranteed in writing, it is less likely that upheavals or changes will bear away the essentials, which are in the end the rights of people before the law.
I should like to make one last comment, perhaps with a little acidity. I believe this to be true from my heart. If there had been a United Kingdom Bill of Rights, the vote requiring, in effect, 80 per cent. of the Scots' aspirations in order to achieve devolution could not have been passed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. In view of rather lengthy speeches, I ought to remind the Committee that the guillotine falls at 9 o'clock.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, Sir Myer. You very rightly reminded the Committee that the guillotine falls at 9 o'clock, so that we have only about one and a quarter hours more. It might also be observed, perhaps, that the debate was shorn of one and a half hours at the start because of the two long Government statements.

The First Deputy Chairman: I appreciate that, but there is nothing that the House of Commons can do to alter the fact that that time is not provided for under the guillotine procedure.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not think that the last remark of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) was very fair, because in most countries—this is the reply to it—to change any constitu

tion requires two-thirds or in some cases three-quarters either of the people or of the legislature. Therefore, the suggestion of gerrymandering or of needing 80 per cent., or whatever the figure is, does not carry much weight.

Mr. Henderson: In that case, surely the hon. Member would say that the vote was invalid on that occasion because we did not have a two-thirds majority of those entitled to legislate.

Mr. Dalyell: I am willing to be drawn into that argument, but the Chair has reminded me about the time factor.

Mr. Henderson: Oh!

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps we could deal with the argument on another occasion.
I come to another point, which is substantial, and I say this in not an unfriendly way to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn. She cannot go on saying that for 20 years of her life she resented the way in which Scottish private law was not dealt with by the House of Commons. It was never a problem of Westminster time. It was a problem of very deep differences of opinion among elected Members of Parliament from Scotland on such matters as, surely, those to which she was referring—the divorce laws and the licensing laws. Some of my right hon. Friends—my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in particular—did not want—rightly, I think—reform along the lines for which others were pressing.
Indeed, coming to the present time and an issue in which both the hon. Lady and I are interested—the reform of the Scottish stated case procedure—my experience over the past year in relation to the case of Sergeant William Jamieson of Bo'ness is not of difficulties at Westminster but of trying to get some agreement among the various law bodies and lawyers in Scotland as to what should be done. In the stated case procedure, the problem is not at the Westminster end, but at the Scotland end.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot have Adjournment debates on constituency matters during the discussion of new clauses.

Mr. Dalyell: I apologise, Sir Myer, but the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn


got away with it. Westminster produces Adjournment debates and ways of raising matters more quickly than any other form of government I know. The House gives endless opportunities to hon. Members to raise such matters and within a week of my asking for this subject to be raised, Mr. Speaker gave me the opportunity.
I cannot make up my mind whether the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) has had a brilliant insight on what should be done or is floating a kite of his own and conducting a campaign that is not relevant to devolution. I shall venture only briefly into the lawyer's den and concentrate on one issue, the parallel with the case of the Isle of Man. Added to the other question in relation to devolution, we now have the Isle of Man question.
The Lord Advocate reminded me that the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom and that its status is that of a dependency of the Crown, but it has its own parliament, claimed to be one of the most ancient in the world, and it passes its own laws for its internal government. The British Government have remained responsible for the island's external affairs.
It was on that basis that the Isle of Man became associated with the European Economic Community with a specially negotiated relationship which appears to favour it with many of the benefits of Community membership without imposing more than minimal responsibilities. To what extent is the parallel with the Isle of Man valid?
The island became subject to the European Convention on Human Rights under the article that allows a signatory to extend it to any territory for whose international relations it is responsible, with the proviso that the convention should be applied in such territories with due regard to local requirements—an exception which the Manx representative adopted in arguing for the retention of birching.
The British Government retain the power to legislate for the Isle of Man on all matters in the interests of good government. It is possible that the residual power may have to be invoked if, as is likely, the court rules that birching contravenes the Convention. It is more than likely that the Manx Parliament, with the substantial support of the Manx

people, will refuse to legislate for the abolition of birching and the United Kingdom Government may find itself under a duty to carry out its international obligation to pass legislation in this House giving effect to the European Court's findings.
Is this different from the situation that would apply after the establishment of a Scottish Assembly? It is beyond doubt that such action would cause a constitutional crisis between Britain and the Isle of Man. The rights and wrongs of birching would be all but forgotten in what would be seen as a battle over Manx independence. This is the gut issue in the clause and I hope that the Minister will explain the position.

Mr. John Smith: It is a little unusual to ask me to explain a clause that I have not recommended to the Committee.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Has the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) noticed in this context the curious implication in Article 1(1) that would enable capital punishment to obtain in Scotland while it did not obtain in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Dalyell: That is very much the pattern that worries us. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned capital punishment. I referred in an earlier intervention to abortion. We are creating the conditions that will enable the Assembly to create different laws on abortion—whether less liberal or more liberal. That is exactly the situation which arises in relation to the Isle of Man.
This issue is not unique to the Isle of Man. The dispute is representative of the sort of dispute that could emerge from any constitutional relationship in which the Parliament of the United Kingdom offered legislative devolution to any of its parts while retaining ultimate and overriding legislative authority.

Mr. Brittan: I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman has said. His assiduous attendance at these debates is a byword and an example to us all. He knows that our views are identical to his own, but if the question is whether we should avoid the problems he foresees, the answer is "Yes". We would rather not have the Bill. But if we are to have


it, the new clauses do not alter the situation in a direction that is material from the point of view that he is now taking. They do not make any difference to the point that he is raising.

Mr. Dalyell: The truth is that the consequences of the proceedings going on in Strasbourg and involving the Isle of Man have a direct relevance to the system that we are in the process of setting up in Edinburgh.
I concede to the Lord Advocate that the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom, but there is a parallel which must concern serious people. If we go ahead there will, time and again, be the sort of unsavoury dispute that has gone on over the Isle of Man and birching. They will be transferred to a much larger forum and may involve altogether more serious subjects.

Mr. Brittan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the alternatives facing the Government are either to incorporate the new clauses into the Bill and to let the Scottish courts deal with these matters or to intervene directly and politically, using, their powers under Clause 20 or Clause 37? Either way there will be conflict and problems.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to take any more time, but I will give way to the Lord Advocate who knows what I am talking about and may wish to comment on it.
It seems that my right hon. and learned Friend does not want to make a comment. In that case, I conclude by saying that there is a serious problem and I want to lay down a marker. For all its shortcomings, the debate has opened a manhole. We have found yet another hornets' nest of difficulties in the Isle of Man problem.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): Unless I seem discourteous to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I intervene to say that I in no way disagree with the reply of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) to my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Dalyell: That confirms that we now have the Isle of Man question to add to all the other questions.

8.0 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I do not suppose that when the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the Isle of Man question he happened to realise that nearly 20 years ago, speaking from the Government Dispatch Box, I had the unexpected duty of replying to an Adjournment debate initiated by the late Mr. Tom Driberg, who complained of the Parliament of the Isle of Man asserting its powers in respect of birching. I stated the proposition that it was fully entitled to do what it did. It has gone on doing what it wanted to do and, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, he made rather heavy weather of the issue. It is a strange anomaly—I suppose that that is how he regards it—that has worked, with toleration on all sides, for nearly 20 years.

Mr. Dalyell: Of course it has worked for 20 years, but the current situation at Strasbourg is that Britain is having to defend a Government for whose internal policies it has literally no responsibility. It is having to do so in circumstances of maximum embarrassment. The experience of 20 years ago was sweet enough, but in current circumstances, with all the dissensions that have been endlessly argued in 34 days of debate, does not the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who was a member of the Kilbrandon Commission, recognise the possibility of maximum embarrassment when the British Government and the British Foreign Office are having to argue cases in Strasbourg—for an Assembly with Assembly law officers it may be that different cases would have to be argued—alongside the Isle of Man Attorney-General, for whose Parliament's internal affairs they have no responsibility? In such circumstances would not we make ourselves look collectively ridiculous?

Sir D. Renton: No, I do not think so. The hon. Gentleman has overlooked that the Isle of Man as an associated State is associated with the European Economic Community and has, in relation to the Community, its own independent status that is separate from that of the United Kingdom.
Having listened to a most interesting debate, I say without hesitation that I favour the case put forward by my hon.


Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). If I may say so, my hon. Friend laid the foundations of the debate candidly as well as effectively.
We are providing for a written constitution for a part of the United Kingdom. It is not the first time that we have done so. It was done for Northern Ireland in 1922, and now we are doing it for Scotland. It was suggested by my hon. Friend, supported by some other hon. Members, and opposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester)—

Mr. Iain Sproat: Very well opposed.

Sir D. Renton: —that a written constitution provides a good opportunity for a Bill of Rights. The opposing suggestion is that whether we have a written constitution or whether we do not, we do not need a Bill of Rights.
That overlooks the strange position in which we are placed. It is strange but acceptable to me because we have become a party to, have ratified, the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom is a party to it through the act of the United Kingdom Government in accepting it and through its having been ratified. It is, therefore, binding upon the United Kingdom. It is also binding on all of us in relation to the EEC. However, until it is made part of the law of the United Kingdom it is not binding on us internally in relation to each other. If I am wrong in that proposition, I hope to be challenged at once. I believe that it is fundamental to our discussion.
Surely we should pay attention to that position when legislating for a Scottish Assembly and Scottish Executive. Although we make various provisions in the Bill as a result of our having become members of the EEC, we find as the Bill stands that the Assembly as such would not be bound by the European Convention. Surely that is a matter that should be dealt with at some stage.
It is essential that we should take care that no Scottish Assembly is tempted, perhaps through an over-developed zeal for Scottish nationalism, to whittle down any of the basic rights of people, whether expressed in the ancient Scottish Claim

of Rights, the Declaration of Arbroath or other historical documents to which the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) referred in her interesting speech. The hon. Lady had briefed herself so well that if I had been a member of the Scottish Bar I could have wished for nothing better than to be briefed by her. However, there is surely a need to ensure that the Scottish people keep these rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Withington said that he did not want us to have a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom or for Scotland. I must remind my hon. Friend that we have the European Convention on Human Rights. To the extent that I have mentioned, it is binding upon us. Therefore, it is no good our saying that we do not want a Bill of Rights. In effect we have one to the limited extent that has been mentioned. As the Minister of State said earlier, the Government are rightly considering whether Parliament should be asked to make it part of the law of the United Kingdom. I do not see how the Government can escape considering that. They may find it difficult to escape asking Parliament to make it part of that law, but I do not want to be committed to that because I have not been into the matter deeply as the Government are now attempting to do.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) perhaps referred to the crux of the issue when by implication—I think almost expressly—he said that this is a question whether we have to go to the European Commission and the European Court to get redress if they find that there has been a breach of the Convention on Human Rights in Scotland, affecting anyone in Scotland, or whether, on the other hand Scottish people uniquely within the United Kingdom should have the right to go to their own courts.
As the Minister of State knows, I have a friendly relationship with the Faculty of Advocates and a great admiration for the Scottish Bench and Bar. They are not perfect, but neither are the Bench and Bar of England and Wales. However, they are made up of people whose tradition, capacity and integrity are of an extremely high order. If I were a Scotsman living in Scotland after devolution, I should not want to be pressed by necessity to go to Brussels and then to the European Court. I should want to have the right to seek


redress in Edinburgh, Glasgow or wherever it might be that the cause of action had arisen.
In the event of devolution taking place, which I hope it will not, within the terms of the Bill, by the new clauses and schedule we offer to Scotland something that would be to its advantage, something of which we should not deprive Scotland, having signed the European Convention of Human Rights. Therefore, I gladly support the new clause.
Several other matters have arisen in the debate to which I want to refer. One Labour Member said that the judiciary was representative of a wealthy elite. I do not know whether he was referring to the Scottish judiciary, but as the Lord Advocate knows, that would be a most inaccurate description of that body. Indeed, it would be just as inaccurate of the judiciary in England and Wales. I know the son of a policeman who is a Queen's Bench judge and another who is the son of a prison officer.

Mr. Sproat: Lord Denning.

Sir D. Renton: Yes, there is Lord Denning. They are great men of relatively humble origin and a good mix. I do not think that any judiciary in the world has ever been totally representative of the society whose laws it has to administer. I wish that the Labour Left would abandon its ridiculous posture in relation to our judiciary.
Next, I turn to the more than academic question of entrenched clauses. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that if there were to be changes in the constitution or in a Bill of Rights, the people should be consulted. The hon. Gentleman maintained that when we had given independence to various Commonwealth countries, we had ensured that the people were consulted. I presume that he meant by the holding of referenda. But that has not always been so.
We have some entrenched clauses in the various independence statutes, but, for the most part, they refer to the requirement of a two-thirds majority in each House of Parliament in the country concerned. References to referenda are made only exceptionally.
Let us consider the entrenched clauses in the Bill. The principal one is to be

found, strangely enough, in Schedule 2, paragraph 7:
A provision is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly if its effect would be to amend this Act.
One could hardly have a stronger entrenched clause. If this Bill of Rights were to be incorporated in the Bill, the Scottish Assembly could not amend it at all. It could be amended only by Parliament. Therefore, any suggestion that we are attempting to introduce a Bill of Rights within the Bill which has no entrenched clause is without foundation.
For those various reasons—I apologise for dealing with the matter in a way that involved making miscellaneous points—I warmly support the new clause.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I listened with interest and at length to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). I hope that there will be no charges tonight that Labour Members have sought unduly to delay proceedings, given the length of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The hon. Gentleman referred to interventions. He said that he was not conducting a seminar. I agree. One of the basic principles for running a seminar efficiently is not to give the floor too often to the more obstructive pupils and, if one makes that mistake, to be careful to correct their errors before they become endemic in the whole class. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman met either criterion. However, I listened with interest to what he said.
At the end of the day my long-standing doubts about a Bill of Rights, whether for the United Kingdom as a whole or for Scotland in particular, were reinforced rather than relieved. One of the great problems of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom was implicit in what the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby said about entrenching the Bill of Rights in some way. In some way? In what way? That is where the proposal founders. It comes into a head-on clash with the central principles of our albeit unwritten constitution.
What I fear most is that, if we attempt to entrench a Bill of Rights in an effective manner, we shall destroy those elements upon which the working of the constitution of the United Kingdom turns.


The one central element of that constitution is the doctrine of the sovereignty, put properly, of the Queen and Parliament which translates, once every five years or less, into the sovereignty of the people at a General Election and, between General Elections, into the sovereignty of Parliament.
It is virtually impossible to find a way of entrenching an Act passed by this Parliament, because part of the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament is that no Parliament may bind its successor. Therefore, if we wish we can pass a Bill with a provision that the Bill may not be changed save with a two-thirds majority of those voting. Therefore, all that the next Parliament has to do is to repeal that provision to make it possible for it to repeal the whole Act.

Sir David Renton: The hon. Gentleman is right that no Parliament may bind its successor. However, Parliament can bind a devolved Assembly. That is exactly what is proposed in Schedule 2, paragraph 7.

Mr. Fowler: I do not deny that. I have not yet turned to the problem of entrenching a Bill of Rights for Scotland. I was talking about a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom. That may seem irrelevant to the new clause, but it is not, because the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby argued that it was desirable partly because embodying in legislation a Bill of Rights for Scotland took us along the road towards embodying or entrenching a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole.
Therefore, it is proper to rehearse some of the traditional difficulties about having entrenched in legislation a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole, not least because, if that were to be impracticable in the long run, we would be left with a Bill of Rights for certain parts of the United Kingdom but not for the whole of the United Kingdom which, if it were to exist in perpetuity, would be an absurdity.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby made play of the fact that we are creating for the first time a written constitution. I do not follow the logic of the argument that a written constitution demands a Bill of Rights. However, we should be clear on that matter,

because it occurs frequently in our debates.
In what sense are we creating a written constitution? In a way, the written constitutions that this Bill and the Wales Bill will create are again not central to the main principles of the British constitution. They do not touch upon the sovereignty of Parliament or upon the doctrine of Cabinet Government. We are really extending what we do when we create local government agencies or ad hoc bodies which exercise certain legal powers. It might be said that this is extreme because we are conferring legislative powers on the Assembly. But at any time this Parliament can withdraw, alter or add to the legislative powers that it has conferred upon the Assembly.
We must not confuse devolution with the creation of a federal system or with the establishment of an independent Scotland. The way in which we are beginning to develop a written constitution is limited. Accession to the Treaty of Rome, of which I am in favour, was a significant step towards a written constitution. In that situation, we accepted something which, unless we renege upon our treaty obligations, fetters the powers of Parliament.
I turn to the question of a Bill of Rights for Scotland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the hon. Member leaves that point, and as the matter is of great importance—he said "Unless we renege upon our treaty obligations"—I suggest to him that it is more correct to say "Unless we make use of the implicit right in the treaty to terminate our adherence to it." The matter is, of course, bound up with the assertion in the Treaty that it is of indeterminate length. It would not be correct to regard withdrawal from the Treaty as reneging.

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is correct. I was using shorthand.
I am opposed to the new clause for four reasons. First, it is unnecessary. As United Kingdom signatories to the European Convention, we remain after devolution as before. Any United Kingdom citizen who is resident in Scotland may petition the European Commission and ultimately gain access to the European


Court. That is not changed by the Bill. Furthermore, restrictions are built into the Bill about what the Scottish Assembly may do in contravention of treaty obligations. These restrictions are embodied in Clause 20(1)(b) and in Clause 37 as it concerns executive acts.
The new clause would prove to be a work of supererogation. It would make Clause 20(1)(a) apply as well as Clause 20(1)(b). Since the whole Act would be construed together and since Schedule 2 would be construed in the light of this new clause, any attempt at legislation by the Assembly which contravened the European Convention on Human Rights would not be within the legislative competence of the Assembly. Splendid. That is an Act of legislative overkill. It is not necessary. I cannot see that the rights of United Kingdom citizens living in Scotland would in any way be damaged after devolution if we do not add the new clause to the Bill.
My second objection is more positive. It is not only necessary but confusing. It is confusing because if we add the new clause to the Bill the right of a United Kingdom citizen to go to the Commission and to the Court would remain unchanged. There would be a parallel right in Scotland to use the domestic courts. It would be possible for the United Kingdom Government, using Clause 20 or Clause 37, to declare legislative or executive acts to be invalid. On top of that, because we would all remain United Kingdom citizens, it would not be a question whether a resident of Scotland was in contravention of some convention but whether that act occurred north of the border and whether that act about which the citizen complained fell within the devolved powers. That would create a jungle which would be unhelpful to the citizen because it would be exceeedingly confusing.

Mr. Brittan: There is no jungle except that which is created by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler). The European Convention would be part of the law of Scotland. An attempt by the Assembly or the Executive to act in contravention to it would be illegal under the law of Scotland. The citizen would have recourse to the courts of Scotland.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby has come to terms with neither of the two points that have been raised in the debates, to both of which I have already referred. First, if the Scottish Assembly or the Executive attempted to act in contravention of the European Convention, it would be denying the spirit of the Bill in any event. The United Kingdom Government could ensure by their action that such a proposed action by the Assembly did not take place. That is the meaning of Clauses 20 and 37.
Secondly, the hon. Member has not come to terms with the fact that the Convention does not march precisely with the devolved powers. For example, it is pointless to pass legislation preventing a Scottish Assembly from taking people into slavery. It could not do that because it does not come within the devolved powers. If the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby put down an amendment adding that provision to Schedule 2, we could consider it at Report stage.
My third objection is that it would give power to the Scottish courts. My objection is not the same as that raised earlier to which the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) took exception. The clauses of the European Convention are exceedingly wide in their drafting. They are not specific. They do not touch upon specific acts—whether legislative or executive—of Government. I believe that it is a mistake—and this is in no way an attack upon the judiciary but rather a defence of democracy—to give the courts the right to determine whether a wide range of acts falls within the wide provisions of legislation. I think that the error in doing that is that one then commits oneself to legislation by the judiciary, and that is why I prefer a system whereby people may come back to a democratically elected Assembly with their detailed complaints which may provide for each complaint to be looked at afresh rather than trying to set it within a very broad framework of provisions.
8.30 p.m.
Finally, I object to the clause on a political ground. Regardless of what the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) said this evening, I have not the slightest doubt that there will be those in Scotland who, if the clause is added


to the Bill, will say that England is all right because it does not need a Bill of Rights and there is no possibility of oppression there, but it is necessary to put the clause into a devolution Bill for Scotland. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire is the last person to believe that the Scots are barbarians, but he said, in all innocence, that we had to guard against the possibility that the Scots might legislate or act executively in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.
There is the great danger in adding the clause to the Bill that one will give yet another weapon to those who wish to fuel the flames of nationalism, perhaps a nationalism much more dangerous than we hear advocated from SNP Members in this House. For all those reasons I hope that the Committee will reject the clause.

Mr. Stokes: I am sorry that the new clauses are deemed to have been thought necessary. I should like to think that they are necessary only because the whole Bill is of such a revolutionary character and introduces into the United Kingdom constitution such novel conceptions that further safeguards over and above the ordinary laws of the land may be required.
The very fact that we have to oppose the introduction of these clauses shows how far the Bill has taken the Committee away from the well-established and long-respected constitution of the United Kingdom, a constitution which has been the envy of many other countries for a long time. Like Burke—I am surprised that no one today has quoted him—I do not have much sympathy with abstract rights. They smack to me of the French Revolution and theoretical concepts of politics. In this country we have always preferred the actual to the theoretical and the specific to the general.
In the normal course of events I also have little sympathy for so called human rights, a conception that I believe to be vague or meaningless. Actual rights or duties in a given situation are quite a different matter, and it is with them that we should be concerned here.
However, in the completely uncharted seas of this Bill—the Minister and the Government try to play down just how unchartered these seas are and to ignore the rocks and shoals about which we have

heard for so long—it may be necessary to have further safeguards for the people of Scotland. This is because if the Bill becomes law those people will be in a different position from that of any other subject of the Queen in other parts of the United Kingdom.
No other part of the United Kingdom will have a Parliament—Wales will certainly not have one, whether or not the Wales Bill is proceeded with. There is no knowing how far the new Scottish Assembly will go in trying its luck at extending its influence. Its Members may, of course, be highly responsible, or they may, as I fear, be not so responsible. They may, for instance, try to legislate—although it may be ultra vires—about the monarchy and about the Church of Scotland. If one party achieves power, I fear that it will certainly wish to diminish wherever possible, those links which have bound England and Scotland together so happily since the Union of 1707.
I believe, therefore, that ordinary Scottish people may in time fear the Assembly and fear this legislation. Safeguards for their liberty, which they have taken for granted all this time under the United Kingdom constitution, may be either taken away from them or put at risk.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is saying exactly what I was talking about a few moments ago? He is saying that the Scots are incapable of governing themselves without denying human rights. When I said that the new clause would be perceived in that way by some Scots, there were Conservative Members who shook their heads, but here we have their hon. Friend making my case for me.

Mr. Stokes: I am saying no such thing. The hon. Member ought to have been here long enough not to put words into my mouth. I was talking about the new Scottish Assembly, not about the entire people of Scotland. Most of the people of Scotland, I believe, do not want this Assembly, or any Assembly at all. It is to those people, and to the people in the whole of the United Kingdom, that we in this Chamber ought to be talking, whether it is popular or not, whether it gets votes or not. I have been here almost every day on this Bill and I intend to speak the truth as I see it, whether it is popular or not.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no desire on the part of the Scottish National Party to break up the United Kingdom? What we are seeking to do is to dissolve the Union of Parliaments of 1707, not to break up the Union of the Crown of 1603. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Stokes: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's reassurance at least about the monarchy. Whether that would survive in the convulsions that would take place if Scotland became a separate country, I very much doubt. What I fear about the hon. Gentleman's party, what people in all parts of this Chamber fear about his party, and what the country fears about it, is that it is using the Bill and the Assembly as a stalking horse for separation and independence.
As I said in an intervention earlier, the new constitution for Scotland is, of course, a written constitution. That is something which, except for Northern Ireland, is entirely new in British constitutional history. It may be argued whether a written constitution requires written safeguards. I admit that that is a matter of judgment. In my view, it probably does.
I am, nevertheless, sad to support these clauses. In general I do not believe in vague, general human rights, but in the new dispensation that may affect Scotland I believe that further safeguards may be necessary. It is with some sadness, therefore, that I shall go into the Division Lobby tonight in support of this amendment because I have fears about the new Assembly.

Mr. John Smith: In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said that he was personally in favour of a Bill of Rights for the whole United Kingdom. I accept that that view is held by some hon. Members. The general principle of having a Bill of Rights was endorsed by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). That view has been in his party for a long time, and I respect the way in which it is held. But there is quite a strong contrary body of opinion in the House and the country.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby put the clause forward as an

attempt to improve the Bill. Indeed, that must be the attempt of any new clause or amendment, but the hon. Gentleman also said—and it was significant that he said it—that it would advance the cause of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole. He therefore invited the support of those who favoured that cause by saying that Scotland should be a pioneer. I have also heard in this debate the phrase "stalking horse" and other such expressions.
Those who oppose a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole, whose view was well expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), will not be attracted by the argument that they should support an amendment to the Bill on the ground that it will advance the cause of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole. That is a fundamental matter which has been considered and is being considered by a Select Committee of the House of Lords. There are arguments on both sides of the matter.
I do not think that it would be wise to come to a decision on whether there should be a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole substantially within the context of a Bill creating a devolved Assembly for Scotland. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman said—and it was not necessary for him to say it in the course of advocating his new clause—that he thought that it would advance the cause of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is not taking it in context. What I said was that I put forward that idea merely in response to the argument that if we were to legislate we should legislate for the United Kingdom as a whole. I said that those who favoured doing that need not be against the legislation for Scotland, because if we legislated for Scotland it would tend in that direction. But the case for doing so for Scotland stands on its merits as well.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman may argue that there is a case for doing it for Scotland alone, irrespective of the general case, but he said that it would advance the cause of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole and thus


sought to attract support for an amendment to the Bill from people who favoured the general concept of a Bill of Rights. I merely say to those who are against the concept of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole that what attracts one side of the argument must repel the other.
Many Conservative Members are genuinely opposed to having a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom and would be opposed to importing into the domestic laws of the United Kingdom the European Convention on Human Rights. What is not at issue in the debate is whether one agrees with the convention. The effect of the clause would be to import into the law of Scotland, so that they could be enforceable in the courts, the provisions set out in the convention, to which the United Kingdom adheres but which it has not yet thought suitable to import directly into our domestic laws.
In passing, I should mention that New Clause 6 is not all that well adapted for use in the Scottish courts. Although the hon. Gentleman got "injunction" translated properly into the Scots word "interdict", he left in the middle of the clause the words "plaintiff" and "defendant", neither of which is known to the law of Scotland.

Mr. Brittan: Is that the hon. Gentleman's best point?

Mr. Smith: No, Sir. There are much better points, but, as the hon. Gentleman has a number of colleagues who are Scots lawyers, he should take not 50 per cent. instruction from them but 100 per cent. It is clear that he did his best when he put "interdict" in, but he could have done better by getting rid of the words "plaintiff" and "defendant". [Interruption.] The hon. Member must not be so sensitive about having made a mistake. The best thing when one makes a mistake in the House of Commons is to admit it and not to become too sensitive towards those who have discovered it. The hon. Gentleman ought to allow himself to be teased a little from time to time. It helps our proceedings to be able to do that and for hon. Members to be able to take it.
8.45 p.m.
The main reason why I invite the Committee not to accept this new clause is that I think it would be unwise for Parliament to take any decision regarding the relationship between the European Convention of Human Rights and our domestic law when we are considering this matter at the moment. As the Committee knows, the Government have issued a discussion paper setting out the arguments for and against. It would be wrong to move into devolution importing into the Bill this convention which, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) has said, does not march very easily with the detailed provisions of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin pointed out the references to slavery in the European Convention of Human Rights. He also referred to the rights to join trade unions. Those of us who have been with this Bill in Committee know that the Assembly does not have rights over trade unions. Employment law is a reserved subject. My hon. Friend was also right to say that these provisions are extremely wide in their application. They are set in very general terms.
I say to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) that she may be putting great inhibitions on the power of a Scottish Assembly, bearing in mind how wide the convention's provisions are. Legislation emanating from the Assembly could frequently be attacked in the courts on the basis of some of the wide provisions of the convention. It is not a convention designed for the powers which the Assembly will have. A little unwittingly the hon. Member may be placing a halter around the neck of the Assembly. As I understood it, the SNP position has been that there should be ever wider powers for the Assembly, with no United Kingdom restrictions.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the Minister consider the point on which I ended my speech, which was that in a world where there is slavery, where there are problems of human rights, for instance when people are prevented from leaving a country, this convention represents at least a minimum standard and we would


be setting a good example? The nationalist Bench is at least prepared to take whatever consequences there may be as a result of such a noble aim.

Mr. Smith: I do not know whether the aim is noble. It may be intended to be noble. I would have thought it much better, if we want a Bill of Rights to function in the Assembly, entrenching certain rights for the citizens of Scotland, to design such a Bill specifically for that purpose. Instead of that it is suggested that we take the European Convention, designed with the normal powers of Parliament in mind, and apply it, holus-bolus, to a devolved Assembly which has responsibility for only some of the issues in one part of the United Kingdom.
If this clause were carried there would be direct access to the courts by all citizens of Scotland but not by those in England. It would be wiser for the United Kingdom to deal with the matter as a whole in one way or another. To import this convention into the Bill would not sit easily with the definition of responsibilities. That has been clearly demonstrated by the examples of slavery and trade unions.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) took the argument in a slightly different key. They pointed out that the difficulty about the proposal for a convention was that it was largely negative. They wanted certain things which were much more positive, such as rights of access—the "open government" case that they have argued assiduously so often. I have had the opportunity of discussions with them about the subject. No doubt, if New Clause 2 had been selected they would have been able to develop their arguments more fully, although even so they were able to demonstrate some of them in favour of the proposition that they wished to advance.
But, with the greatest respect to the sincerity with which my hon. Friends hold their views, we do not think that it would be appropriate to build matters into the Assembly which we believe it should be able to take its own decision about. Little is said about procedures in the Scotland Bill and in the Wales Bill—much less than in the Scotland and Wales Bill of the last Session. I am sure that

when the Assembly is established, the case that my hon. Friends have made will be carefully considered by its Members. I hope that it will be. I do not endorse everything that my hon. Friends have said, but they have raised important points well worthy of consideration by the Assembly.
No doubt, since my hon. Friends are persistent men, and as there are some persistent ladies who associate themselves with the general cause, they will pursue their arguments with those responsible in the political parties, with those elected to the Assembly, and with those who may form the Administration.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend is hoping to get as many people as possible to vote for this Bill in the referendum. Surely he should be prepared to spell out the details. For many people in Scotland, the question whether devolution will be a good or a bad thing is not as important as whether they will get more open government than they get at the moment. If that is to be left to the Assembly, it puts off the question until the Assembly votes on it.

Mr. Smith: One of the difficulties is that so many people with very good causes seek to put them into the Bill. We prefer on the whole to leave such matters for the Assembly. One has to have reasonable confidence in it. I hope that the result in Scotland will not be the sort of closed society as that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr referred—for example, not giving public access to the proceedings of the Assembly, and so on. I hope that government will be conducted as openly as possible. It should be possible to do that in a country of only 5 million people, considering the range of responsibilities that the Assembly will have. It is a far more difficult task for the United Kingdom Government, with the multifarious responsibilities that they have.
If this is regarded as a general debate about whether a Bill of Rights is desirable for the United Kingdom, it has been interesting, but I must advise the Committee that it would not be wise to tack on to the Bill, dealing with devolution, this set of rights which are defined in advance, which are not suited to the structure of the Bill, and which would,


indeed, cause great difficulty in the operation of the Assembly. The Assembly would find itself confined, perhaps, by a series of cases against it on the very wide principles contained in the European Convention.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Can the hon. Gentleman give some examples of the difficulties which would be experienced?

Mr. Smith: I think that the difficulties that would arise from direct enforcement include provisions which deal with the criminal law. For example, there are provisions in the convention that no one should be liable to imprisonment for breach of contractual liability, and so on. Such things might cut across the freedom of the Assembly to legislate in these matters. Moreover, as was said by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), difficulties could arise under Article 1.
Another example is Article 7(1):
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
I am not sure precisely what that means. I am sure that it is included with the very best of intentions, but one of the difficulties is that a litigant might take any act of the Scottish Executive or of the Scottish Assembly to court and manage to get on its legs an argument which in the end was fallacious, using the pretext of some of these provisions.
The major difficulty, however, is that the proposed Bill of Rights is not designed to go with the structure of the Bill. If it were, there would, perhaps, be a much more powerful argument for advocates of a Bill of Rights. But I think that even those in favour of having a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom will recognise that this is a bad way of doing it, tacking on something because one is enthusiastic about a general principle although its incorporation may cause great difficulties in the operation of the Assembly.

Mr. Brittan: There is nothing that ill accords with the Assembly or the structure of the Bill. The truth is that, Bill of Rights or no Bill of Rights, if the Scottish Assembly sought to do the things which the Minister says might cause difficulty, it would be acting contrary to its powers

because it would be in breach of a United Kingdom international obligation under the European Convention. Moreover, not only would the Assembly be in breach of its powers and acting ultra vires but the individual would have redress. The only difference at the moment, if our proposal is not incorporated in the Bill, is that the individual will have redress to the European Commission and Court, whereas if it is in the Bill he will have redress before the Scottish courts.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman well knows that the United Kingdom Parliament has not taken a decision on whether it will bind itself under the European Convention—

Mr. Brittan: We have ratified the treaty.

Mr. Smith: There is quite a difference between accepting an international treaty and allowing certain principles embodied in a convention, which is part of that treaty, to be enforced directly in the courts of this country. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with saying that there is no question of infringement of parliamentary sovereignty if the European Convention on Human Rights is imported into the domestic law of both England and Scotland. There is a serious question about limitation of parliamentary sovereignty. One might find some ingenious ways of getting round it, but there is no question whatever that parliamentary sovereignty is one of the serious issues involved.
If this Parliament were bound by the European Convention being imported into the domestic law of England and Scotland, perhaps at the same time, it would be open to aggrieved citizens to challenge the vires of Acts of this Parliament in the courts on the ground that they infringed the convention which has been imported into part of our law.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Scottish Assembly is different because it is not a sovereign institution. But we should then have a situation in which the Assembly was confined by the convention but the United Kingdom Parliament was not, so that there would be access to the courts, for example, on a change in education made by the Assembly but no access to the courts about a change in


education made by the United Kingdom Parliament affecting England.
It is not desirable to take an international obligation such as the European Convention and have it enforced directly in only one part of the United Kingdom. It makes no practical sense to have different rights on that scale and about a matter which at root relates to a United Kingdom obligation. The whole of the hon. Gentleman's case was that he was seeking merely to put into our domestic law what is a United Kingdom obligation already in terms of the treaty.
I do not believe that the proposal before us makes much sense, and I assure the Committee that it does not sit well with the structure of the Bill. I am sure that even those who favour having a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom, for Scotland or for any other part of the United Kingdom, if it came to that, would find it difficult to run both of these together.
The Bill has been carefully constructed, and its division of responsibilities is precise. Some hon. Members have criticised it as too precise. I urge the Committee that at this late stage to import this new principle, which has implications for the whole United Kingdom—though I leave that aside at this moment—would not be wise and would not be a way of creating effective legislation.

The Committee would be much wiser to leave the whole question until it has been decided after full consideration. As hon. Members know, it is under active consideration now. When a conclusion has been arrived at, the House can come to a decision, if the European Convention is to be incorporated into our law, on how it is to be done. This is not the time.

Moreover, as I have said, the proposal is unnecessary. It is not necessary to protect the citizen, because the United Kingdom Government can block any legislation under an international obligation under Clause 20. However, though, unnecessary, it has been useful for a general discussion on the question of a Bill of Rights. But I do not think that useful discussion means that there should be a change made in the Bill which does not sit well with its structure and with the way in which the Bill has been organised. Great difficulty and confusion would be caused if we embodied the change proposed in the new clause at this stage.

It being Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 227, Noes 251.

Division No. 90]
AYES
[9.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Alison, Michael
Buck, Antony
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Burden, F. A.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Arnold, Tom
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Carlisle, Mark
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fox, Marcus


Awdry, Daniel
Channon, Paul
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Churchill, W. S.
Freud, Clement


Baker, Kenneth
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fry, Peter


Banks, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Beith, A. J.
Clegg, Walter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bell, Ronald
Cockroft, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cope, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Benyon, W.
Crawford, Douglas
Goodhart, Philip


Berry, Hon Anthony
Critchley, Julian
Goodhew, Victor


Biffen, John
Crouch, David
Goodlad, Alastair


Biggs-Davison, John
Crowder, F. P.
Gorst, John


Blaker, Peter
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Body, Richard
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Drayson, Burnaby
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bottomley, Peter
Durant, Tony
Grieve, Percy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Dykes, Hugh
Griffiths, Eldon


Braine, Sir Bernard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Brittan, Leon
Emery, Peter
Grist, Ian


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Grylls, Michael


Brooke, Peter
Eyre, Reginald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brotherton, Michael
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brown. Sir Edward (Bath)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hannam, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Farr, John
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)




Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mawby, Ray
Sainsbury, Tim


Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Scott, Nicholas


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Colin


Hayhoe, Barney
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shersby, Michael


Henderson, Douglas
Mills, Peter
Sims, Roger


Heseltine, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Sinclair, Sir George


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hodgson, Robin
Moate, Roger
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Holland, Philip
Monro, Hector
Spence, John


Hooson, Emlyn
Montgomery, Fergus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hordern, Peter
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stanley, John


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hurd, Douglas
Mudd, David
Stokes, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Neave, Airey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Jopling, Michael
Neubert, Michael
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Newton, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow West)
Thompson, George


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Page, Richard (Workington)
Trotter, Neville


Knight, Mrs Jill
Parkinson, Cecil
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Lamont, Norman
Pattie, Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Penhaligon, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Lawrence, Ivan
Percival, Ian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wall, Patrick


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walters, Dennis


Loveridge, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Warren, Kenneth


Luce, Richard
Raison, Timothy
Watt, Hamish


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rathbone, Tim
Weatherill, Bernard


MacCormick, Iain
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wells, John


McCrindle, Robert
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Welsh, Andrew


Macfarlane, Neil
Reid, George
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mackintosh, John P.
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rhodes, James R.
Winterton, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Madel, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Marten, Neil
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Younger, Hon George


Mates, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Mather, Carol
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maude, Angus
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. John MacGregor and


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Cartwright, John
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Allaun, Frank
Clemitson, Ivor
Flannery, Martin


Anderson, Donald
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cohen, Stanley
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
Ford, Ben


Ashley, Jack
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Forrester, John


Ashton, Joe
Concannon, J. D.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Atkinson, Norman
Corbett, Robin
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
George, Bruce


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Crawshaw, Richard
Ginsburg, David


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Golding, John


Bates, Alf
Cryer, Bob
Gould, Bryan


Bean, R. E.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Gourlay, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Grocott, Bruce


Biggs-Davison, John
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Deakins, Eric
Hardy, Peter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Harper, Joseph


Boardman, H.
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Doig, Peter
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dormand, J. D.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dunn, James A.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bradford, Rev Robert
Dunnett, Jack
Horam, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Huckfield, Les


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
English, Michael
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Ian
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Hunter, Adam


Carson, John
Evans, John (Newton)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Carter Jones, Lewis
Faulds, Andrew
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)




Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Molloy, William
Spearing, Nigel


Janner, Greville
Molyneaux, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Moonman, Eric
Sproat, lain


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stallard, A. W.


John, Brynmor
Morris, Charles R (Openshaw)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Moyle, Roland
Stoddart, David


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stott, Roger


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Newens, Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Noble, Mike
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oakes, Gordon
Surmmerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Judd, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Kaufman, Gerald
Orbach, Maurice
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Kerr, Russell
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Kilfedder, James
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Padley, Walter
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Kinnock, Neil
Park, George
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lambie, David
Parker, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lamborn, Harry
Parry, Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Lamond, James
Pavitt, Laurie
Tinn, James


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Pendry, Tom
Tomlinson, John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, Ernest
Tomney, Frank


Litterick, Tom
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Torney, Tom


Loyden, Eddie
Prescott, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Luard, Evan
Price, William (Rugby)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Radice, Giles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Richardson, Miss Jo
Ward, Michael


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, David


McCusker, H.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Watkinson, John


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Robinson, Geoffrey
Weetch, Ken


McElhone, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn
Weitzman, David


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
White, James (Pollok)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Whitehead, Phillip


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Rooker, J. W.
Whitlock, William


Maclennan, Robert
Roper, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Madden, Max
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Magee, Bryan
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Marks, Kenneth
Sever, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Woodall, Alec


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Woof, Robert


Maynard, Miss Joan
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Silvester, Fred



Mikardo, Ian
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Snape, Peter
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Mitchell, Austin

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 16

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

9.15 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I beg to move Amendment No. 447, in page 79, line 7, after 'record)' insert
'transmitted under subsection (1) of this section'.
Perhaps—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman (Sir Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I think that it would be convenient if we were allowed to hear what the right hon. Lady has to say.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I was about to say, by way of explanation, that Section 5 of the Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937 provides that

"It shall be lawful for any Government Department, board of trustees, or any other body or person having the custody of any records belonging to His Majesty and relating exclusively or mainly to Scotland…to transmit such records to the Keeper."

The proposed new subsection seems to me to go a great deal wider than was originally intended.

I do not pretend to be an expert on this matter but, as a background, I think that we should remember that through the 1937 Act, as the Secretary of State will confirm, there were gathered together under a particularly distinguished Keeper of the Records in Scotland—the late Sir James Fergusson—many records of the past history of Scotland which had previously been widely dispersed in the hands of the various bodies or persons described. These records constitute much of our history. What I seek to do now, by way of an exploratory amendment, is to find out whether we have the same


safeguards for them as were intended by the 1937 Act.

As I read Schedule 16 in page 79, it seems to me that it stretches a good deal more widely. The proposed new subsection seems to permit a Minister of the Crown to withdraw from the custody of the Keeper of the Records of Scotland any records whatever that he at present holds, irrespective of date, character and origin, although of course it clearly excludes those of courts and justices of the peace and private records specified in the new subsection. If I am right, and the new subsection goes as widely as I read it, it means that there would be an enormous category which would include, in theory, the records of the old Kingdom of Scotland and of the old Scottish Parliament.

The amendment proposes to reduce Crown responsibility to the category presumably intended. I should like the Secretary of State to reassure us tonight that there is no need for the amendment, because the Bill as drafted does not extend further than the section of the 1937 Act to which I have referred. The amendment reduces Crown responsibility to the 1937 category and reduces the possibility of removal of such sensitive records as have been deposited since the Public Records (Scotland) Act took effect.

I do not wish to detain the Committee, but this is an important point, particularly because of the distinguished work done by the late Keeper of the Records, which is being carried on. I should like an assurance that we are not, perhaps inadvertently, damaging provisions that have been made.

Mr. Sproat: I agree about the background to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) has said. Hon. Members will wish to pay tribute to the distinguished work of the late Keeper of the Records, but I am not sure that the amendment, which I intended to support originally, does what my right hon. Friend wants it to do.
She seeks to provide that documents that might be politically sensitive and might normally fall within, say, some sort of 30-year rule should still be able to be withdrawn by Government Departments, but that other documents should remain in Scotland. If the amendment achieved

that aim, I would support it, but I fear that it does not do that. It seems to provide that no documents that have been deposited with the Keeper until the Bill becomes operational could be summoned by a Minister. That would be quite wrong since the ultimate Parliament is the British Parliament not any Scottish Assembly and Ministers here must have the right, if they wish, to have access to those documents.
There is no question of a British Minister taking the Declaration of Arbroath out of Scotland and housing it here like a latter-day Stone of Scone. I do not believe that the words on the Order Paper achieve the objective that my right hon. Friend is seeking. We should seek a Government assurance that no Government would seek to take historic documents from Scotland and house them in London. That is surely outside the bounds of possibility. I hope that the Minister will give us that assurance and that we can get on to discuss forestry and tourism.

Mr. Rhodes James: I support the amendment, though I share some of the doubts of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). The amendment is exploratory and, although I am not a Scottish Member, I have an interest in it becuse I played a part in ensuring that the Rosebery papers were retained in Scotland and did not join the unwelcome trend of all historic papers being placed in London.
As an historian, I also have an interest in supporting the amendment. I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Secretary of State that, with the exception of certain recent and sensitive documents, the general principle will be that all records relating to the history of Scotland should be retained in Scotland to expand the collection of papers and resources there.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): Given the intentions of the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire. East (Miss Harvie Anderson), the amendment is probably misconceived, but if there is a feeling that we have got it wrong in the Bill I am willing to consider the matter again. The important point to note is that the keeping of public records are a devolved function under Schedule 10 and that this includes any records in the custody of the Keeper of


the Records of Scotland on the coming into force of the Bill. All the records that the right hon. Lady is concerned about will remain in the custody of the Keeper. Any functions of government relating to them will be devolved functions.
The amendment of the Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937 in Schedule 16 of the Bill is to safeguard the position of the Government and Government Departments at Westminster. The records are not only the records of the Scottish Office; they can be records of other Government Departments relating to Scotland that are under the custody of the Keeper of the Records at this minute.
It seems from what has been said that it is the feeling of the Committee that that is where they should remain. However, it must be possible for Ministers and Departments in Westminster to have access to them. As I have said, the purpose of the amendment to the 1937 Act is to safeguard that access. It is not our purpose to remove records from Scotland and bring them to London; it is to allow ourselves access if there is any difficulty on that score. I hope that in practice there will be no such difficulty.
Access is needed in the ordinary course of Government business, and that must be retained. We are dealing specifically with pre-devolution records, to which we must be able to have access. That is why we seek to amend the 1973 Act. The schedule refers to removing records
from the Keeper's custody either temporarily or permanently".
That is for the purpose of access. It is not intended to remove the records from Scotland.
The unfortunate effect of the amendment is that by introducing the words:
transmitted under subsection (1) of this section
the right hon. Lady removes the protection of records transmitted under subsection (2), namely, local authority records. If there were a difficulty of access, or any other difficulty, about the records relating to local authorities, the right hon. Lady's amendment, if accepted, would prove even more devolutionary in removing a right that is now contained in the schedule. It would have the opposite effect from what she has in mind.
I hope that the right hon. Lady will agree to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but following this short discussion I shall check to ensure that we have the matter right. It is a rather complicated method of doing what is intended. We have devolution under the Schedule 10, and then there is this small protection in Schedule 16.
I am willing to reconsider the matter to ensure that we have it right, in view of what has been said. If the right hon. Lady is willing to accept that assurance, I shall write to her. If I find that we do not have it completely right, the Government will table an amendment. However, I believe that we have it right.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his assurances, especially the assurance that he will consider the matter again with particular reference to the word "withdrawn". It is that word that concerns us as much as anything else. However with the right hon. Gentleman's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 615, in Schedule 16, page 80, line 38, leave out 'sections 5A and 6A' and insert 'section SA'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Amendment No. 616, in page 80, line 40, leave out 'or' and insert
and the provisions of that section and section 4 of this Act shall not apply'.

Mr. John Smith: In essence, these are drafting amendments. A Scottish Secretary will, in future, make Statutory Instruments under the Westminster Statutory Instruments code, under powers derived from Westminster legislation. He may also make Statutory Instruments under powers conferred by Assembly legislation if the Assembly is content to apply or adopt the Westminster code as established by and under the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. That Act has to be extended to relate to instruments made by a Scottish Secretary. That is the purpose of paragraphs 2 to 8 of Schedule 16.
Paragraph 7(c) of Schedule 16 deals with a web of consequential amendments by adding a new subsection to Section


7 of the Act, but it does not at present get the detail quite right. The amendments are designed to clear up a point of detail. As the Bill stands, it is substantially correct but there is an infelicitous expression that we seek to correct.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 616, in page 80, line 40, leave out 'or' and insert:
'and the provisions of that section and section 4 of this Act shall not apply ".—[Mr. John Smith.]

9.30 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 638, in page 81, line 8, at end insert:

'THE COAST PROTECTION ACT 1949

10A.—(1) The Coast Protection Act 1949 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsections (4) and (5) of sections 5 and 8 there shall be inserted, in each case at the beginning, the words 'Subject to subsection (5A) below".

(3) After subsection (5) of each of those sections there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
(5A) Where—

(a) notice of objection has been served under subsection (3) above by' an excepted statutory undertaker (within the meaning of section 79(1) of the Scotland Act 1977) and not withdrawn; and
(b) the coast protection authority proposing to carry out the work concerned is in Scotland;
the powers of the Minister under subsections (4) and (5) above shall be exercised by a Scottish Secretary with the consent of a Minister of the Crown.

(4) In subsection (4) of section 17 there shall be inserted at the beginning the words "Subject to subsection (4A) below".

(5) After subsection (4) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
(4A) Where—

(a) the undertakers are an excepted statutory undertaker (within the meaning of section 79(1) of the Scotland Act 1977); and
(b) notice of objection has been served under subsection (3) above by a coast protection authority in Scotland and has not been withdrawn;
a Scottish Secretary, after affording to the undertakers and to the authority an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed for the purpose by him with the approval of the appropriate Minister, shall, subject to the consent of that Minister, determine the objection.".'

The Coast Protection Act in Sections 5, 8 and 17 provides for joint action by the Minister responsible for coast protection and by the Minister responsible for a statutory undertaker where either wishes to carry out works to which the other objects.

After devolution, coast protection will be the responsibility of the Scottish Assembly and Executive while the United Kingdom Government will be responsible for excepted statutory undertakers as defined by Clause 79(1). Joint action would not be possible after devolution if it involved the Scottish Executive and the Government. It has therefore to be replaced by an alternative procedure.

The amendment would insert an entry in Schedule 16 to replace the provision for joint action in the Coast Protection Act with new procedures designed to meet the new circumstances. These will safeguard the interests of coast protection authorities and excepted statutory undertakers by providing that, when a dispute occurs between a body of one type and a body of the other, the decision will be taken by a Scottish Secretary but subject to the consent of a Minister.

This is a fairly minor matter, but it is important to get it right. I hope that the Committee will adopt the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 601, in page 82, line 20, at end insert
England, Wales and Northern Ireland or elsewhere in Europe.
I was worried whether, by not including the other parts of the United Kingdom and Europe, we might be denied the opportunity of using harbours, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, for transport possibly to the Continent or to other parts of the United Kingdom.
The matter is slightly complicated because paragraph 17 alters the definition of "marine work". Yet Schedule 15, which specifies the reserved functions of local authorities, includes
Ports (other than marine works).
Therefore, marine works are excluded from what local authorities may do. That does not seem to equate with what happens in my constituency. When we have harbour repairs in Anstruther or


Pittenweem, as far as I can see the whole bill falls on the local authority. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to explain that matter to me.
"Marine work" is explained further in the 1937 Act. There are exceptions in Schedule 3 to that Act. That takes out the major ports of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen. But in Schedule 16, paragraph 17, allowance is given for the Highlands and Islands, Orkney and Shetland and that part of Argyll not on the Firth of Clyde to gain help for communications to other parts of Scotland.
I think that there may be a need, for instance, to have transport facilities from Orkney and Shetland to Norway. I have been in Shetland and seen ships loading fish to go to North America. I think that at times vessels might want to load fish in Stornoway for transport to France and so on.
I hope that I have misunderstood the object of this wording and that the Secretary of State can allay my fears.

Mr. J. Grimond: Since the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) drew my attention to his amendment, I have been puzzled by its effect. Therefore, I should like to know the purpose of this part of Schedule 16.
I understand that the wording is almost identical to that of the previous Act, except that the Scottish Secretary is substituted for the Secretary of State. I also understand that ports are now not a devolved subject, but that marine works are.
What is the effect of paragraph 17(b) in limiting the definition of "marine work" to places which have communications with any other part of Scotland? This was the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Fife, East. I expect that it is explained easily. Not only are there certain harbours in my constituency which have a trade with Norway and Russia but some of the smaller harbours have a trade with the North East coast of England. Will this have any effect upon them?

Mr. Millan: I understand why the amendment has been tabled but I do not believe that it is necessary. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that

marine works are a devolved function under Group 12 of Schedule 10. If the Committee looks at that it will see that we are dealing, in the context of marine works, with harbours and boatslips, basic fishing harbours or those used for communications to the islands.
In Schedule 16 there is a slightly amended definition to take care of a situation where the Scottish Secretary rather than the Secretary of State for Scotland is involved. We are not widening or narrowing the definition of harbours or marine works. The wording in the schedule does not say that these works must be exclusively used for fishing, agriculture or the maintenance of communications. It says that they must be "principally used" rather than "exclusively used". Therefore, a particular harbour that might come under this category would not be removed from the definition of "marine works".
Under existing harbours legislation ports are not to be devolved. That must be a little comfort to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in the context of Shetland. At the moment fisheries harbours are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, whereas ports such as the Clyde Port are the responsibility of the Transport Minister. Under existing legislation there is a provision to allow the Secretary of State for Scotland to add harbours to the category of harbours for which he is responsible. He does that with the concurrence of the Transport Minister. When we have devolution and the Scottish Secretary takes over the functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland it will be necessary to provide that harbours can be brought within his competence only with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for Scotland who will be a United Kingdom Minister.
We shall move from the position where the Secretary of State can have a harbour defined as a marine works with the concurrence of the Transport Minister to a situation where the Scottish Secretary can do that with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for Scotland. If that were not so it would be possible for a Scottish Secretary to devolve harbours which are not intended to be devolved by having them redefined as marine works which are within his competence.
That is why we have had to write a different definition into Schedule 16 to include the concurrence of the Secretary of State as part of the definition of marine works. But apart from that, we are not altering the definition, and I can therefore assure the hon. Member that his fears are groundless. If we were to widen the definition we would potentially be widening the area of devolution, which I believe, is not what the hon. Member had in mind. I hope that with that explanation the Committee will accept that the amendment is neither necessary nor desirable.

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. George Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 603, in page 83, leave out lines 11 to 17.
This amendment gives us the opportunity at long last to discuss a subject that many hon. Members wished to discuss earlier in our debates. I refer to the question of forestry, and, if the Bill becomes law, its destination.
The purpose of the amendment is to question the lines of the schedule. I hope, however, that we shall have the opportunity to embark upon a general discussion of forestry in our debate on the amendment. Forestry is closely bound up with agriculture. In many respects it is modern practice—desirably so—for both sets of activities to be welded together. They often interact one upon the other and it is therefore strongly felt by those involved in these activities that as far as possible the destination of the various powers and functions after devolution should as nearly as possible follow parallel lines.
That is why considerable concern has been expressed on this matter. Hon Members on both sides of the Committee will have had representations on the question of the different treatment that is proposed for forestry as against agriculture.
The Bill provides that agriculture is a divided function. Those parts of agriculture which come within national negotiations affecting the whole of Britain, and those parts affected by EEC decisions which increasingly impinge upon agriculture, are to be retained functions. Aspects of agriculture which can be more

conveniently dealt with by the Assembly are to be devolved. We hope that forestry can be treated in a similar way.
Will the Minister indicate whether he is prepared, after a preliminary debate tonight—a debate which can be only perfunctory at this stage—to take note of the unanimous views of those in forestry that the Bill as drafted is unsatisfactory. We have had representations from the Scottish Woodland Owners Association that they are concerned about the matter. Many of us have had similar representations from constituents. Although we cannot know officially the views of the Forestry Commission on this matter, the Secretary of State will know what advice it has given him from time to time, and hon. Members have ways of discovering the views that are generally held in those quarters.
Therefore, although this is to be a cursory and perfunctory debate, I hope that it will provide an opportunity for views to be expressed and for the Minister to indicate some sympathy with the great concern felt by many people involved in forestry.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am extremely concerned about the part of the schedule which affects forestry, and I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has been able to move the amendment, even at the very last hour of our guillotined proceedings in Committee.
I have not heard one good word in Scotland for the inclusion of forestry as a devolved subject and, more importantly, as a separate issue from that of agriculture. For decades everyone involved in farming and forestry has been saying that we must integrate the two activities and bring them forward together. Yet here the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is also our Minister of Agriculture, is splitting up the two functions. It surely must be completely against the trends and the desires of those engaged in farming and forestry at the present time.
This does not apply only to the interests of the individual forester and the individual farmer. It also involves going against the policies of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, which has for years been working to bring together these two parts of our land resources.


Indeed, the Select Committee which examined the subject a long time ago pointed to the tremendous advantage of forestry being as close as possible to agriculture.
We have to consider also the position that may follow in Scotland. Not only have we this policy decision on the splitting up of these two activities; over the years there has been a very close relationship between the Forestry Commission and the owners of private woodlands. The Forestry Commisison has been responsible for administering the grants on a national basis to private woodland owners. There will now, presumably, be a splitting up of functions.
Many foresters in England and Wales are surely wondering why, after setting up this splendid Forestry Commission headquarters in Edinburgh to look after forests in the whole of the United Kingdom, a large proportion of its duties are to be taken away from a body which has gained so much stature in Scotland and is regarded as being of such importance. We ought to have regard, therefore, to the undoubted success of the Forestry Commission in Scotland.
Forestry, being a United Kingdom function, is split up into conservancy areas. In Scotland, conservancy has had spectacular success in South-West Scotland, not only in forestry but also in the development of recreation and tourism, which now go hand in hand with the development of planting and the subsequent felling, saw-milling, and so on. In this context we also have to consider the controversy concerning the future of pulping and chipboard in Scotland.
These are all part of an overall United Kingdom function and must not be reduced to an almost parochial function within Scotland, which would be without the benefit of the overall integration of forestry in the United Kingdom.
We also have to consider the staff who have been employed, naturally on a United Kingdom basis, from the time that they joined the Commission. How are they to be parcelled out between the Scottish part of the Forestry Commission and the rest of it?
I do not know where the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland will be in relation to the Secretary of State. It will have an agricultural function, but apparently not a forestry function. That is a retrograde step.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr rightly said that a whole host of objections had been set out in great detail by all the distinguished bodies looking after forestry not only in Scotland but in the United Kingdom. I think particularly of the Royal Scottish Forestry Society, the Scottish Woodlands Owners Association, the Timber Growers' Association in England and many other organisations which know what they are talking about in terms of timber growing. They know the snags. They realise the problems of timber imports and how best to fight that danger, but do not have much support from the Government.
Forestry is crucial to Scotland's future, and we shall have it for hundreds of years ahead. I cannot see how devolving this major resource away from the power of the whole United Kingdom, as the Secretary of State wishes, will advance its interests. I entirely support the amendment, and hope that we shall win in the Lobby.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: I am glad that we have had the opportunity to reach this subject. It is one upon which I recently said a few words and gained a certain amount of publicity when I described forestry as a British disgrace. Therefore, I have some caveats about the amendment, although I do not intend to push the matter to a vote.
Having the chance of this debate, we should analyse exactly where forestry should be in a devolved Scotland. Let us look at countries similar to Britain. We find that 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of the land area of Germany, France and Japan is covered by trees. In the United Kingdom, which is of similar size, similar development and similar population, the percentage is a miserable, miserly 7 per cent.
It is not possible to apportion blame to one party or the other. Remembering that the lifespan of softwood is 75 years and that of hardwood is 150 years, we


see that we can go back to the Gladstonian Liberal policies of the last century, which made it far more attractive to import timber than to grow it in this country. Therefore, the reason for our forestry problem goes back not over Governments but virtually over a century.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Does not my hon. Friend think that perhaps part of the trouble in the old days was the estate duty started by the Liberal Party?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I do not think that the matter is quite as simple as that. I think that the cause was policies which made it far simpler, easier and more economic for people in this country to import timber than to grow it here. I leave it to others to work out what acts caused it, but I believe that the policies initially caused it.
This is where we must look at the position in Scotland. We represent one-third of the United Kingdom land mass but have barely one-tenth of the United Kingdom population. By every ratio we are a country most suitable for the growing of trees. In fact, for most of the types we could grow, our growing rate is, because of our geographical conditions, twice that of Scandinavia. Yet what do we find in Scotland? We find vast areas of land—

Mr. Henderson: Grouse moors.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I shall return to that stupid point a little later.
We find vast areas of land covered not by cattle, sheep or grouse moors but by nothing but scree, bracken or gorse. There are millions and millions of acres of unused land. A lot of it could be under trees.
What is more serious to the United Kingdom as a whole is that we have three colossal import bills—for food, energy and timber products. It is surprising to learn after the figures I have given, that timber is our third largest import, costing a colossal £2,000 million-plus per annum. The import bill for food will come down if the Government's policies encourage the production of food from our own resources. The import costs in respect of

energy will come down substantially as North Sea oil comes on stream. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, as a result, timber could become our largest import bill. What a disgrace. That is why I say that this is an important debate on a subject which ought to be widely ventilated.
Here I must take issue with my colleagues on the Front Bench. Had Scotland been an independent country, or one which controlled its own resources, we would have had to consider forestry in the same way as do the Scandinavian countries. Our forestry industry would have been similar to those in Sweden Norway and Finland where over 50 per cent. of the land is under trees. None of us should be sceptical in this respect. Scotland has suffered in its forestry development because of industrial priorities. Taking the United Kingdom as a whole and considering its industrial priorities, we have such things as car making, consumer durables, and agriculture at the top of the list. Forestry in the United Kingdom probably comes about No. 5 on a list of 10. If forestry were to become a Scottish problem it would rise immediately to about No. 8. It would have a far higher priority within a Scottish decision-making context.

Mr. Galbraith: How can my hon. Friend maintain that, when the bulk of the population in Scotland is an industrial population, in the central belt, and is not a bit interested in what happens to the rest of the population?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I suspect that my hon. Friend is not interested in this Bill if there are any arguments which do not suit his point of view. I am not talking about the central industrial belt. I am pointing out that Scotland's population represents one-tenth of the United Kingdom population and that Scotland has a third of its land area.

Mr. Galbraith: My hon. Friend is saying that, because Scotland is part of Great Britain and because Great Britain is primarily an industrial country, forestry in Scotland has not been properly developed. All I am saying is that if Great Britain is an industrial country, Scotland is even more so.

Mr. Fairgrieve: It is obvious that my hon. Friend wishes these great masses of unutilised land in Scotland to remain unused. His argument convinces no one in any party. I suggest that he puts a little timber in his pipe. Scotland has lost out here because forestry does not have the correct priority in the United Kingdom industrial set-up.
I agree with some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). In this country, we have been slow in the integration of agriculture and forestry. It is not a question merely of shelter belts but of learning how to winter cattle—for example, to winter them in the lower slopes of tree-planted areas—and of understanding that trees can be grown and cropped just as wheat and other renewable sources can.
In trees we have not only a renewable source of energy but an employment multiplier. Forestry is one of the few remaining labour-intensive industries. Once the trees are there, whatever one is dealing with on the spot at any given moment in time, one has all the downstream employment multipliers of milling, pulp making and paper board. Trees are there, and they are available the whole time providing an indigenous source of energy.
I do not disagree with the amendment, but I enter a caveat. Were we looking at forestry from the purely Scottish point of view instead of from the United Kingdom point of view, we would not be in the present situation over the importing of timber. I hope that it will not happen in future.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. W. Benyon: I support the amendment. It is an indication of the absurdity of the guillotine procedure that we should be discussing forestry on this amendment. We should have been discussing it on Schedule 10. If by chance the amendment were passed, it would be consequential on a provision which is already passed in the Bill as a result of the guillotine. But that is a nit-picking point.
I strongly support what my hon. Friends have said about the integration of agriculture and forestry. It is a most important point. I await with interest

to hear what the Minister of State says as to why the two are to be separated.
I want to make a consequential point to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) said. We have had the discovery of a major natural resource in the British Isles—and I emphasise "British Isles"—in oil. We are told that it will last for 25 to 30 years. During that period we have to consider how we can best equip the country to face the years thereafter. One of the ways in which we can do that is as my hon. Friend pointed out, to tackle those industries where we have a major import problem—and timber, of course, is the one which concerns my hon. Friend. By a modest application of about £5 million or £10 million a year from oil revenues, a transformation of that problem could be accomplished during that period. But I emphasise that it means treating the United Kingdom forestry estate as a whole, regarding it as a whole, and giving it the same incentives and the same provisions.

Mr. Fairgrieve: My hon. Friend has made a most important point. Recently in Scotland, one of the major international oil producers asked whether it could help Britain by investing money that it was getting out of oil in a renewable source. It asked particularly about timber. But wherever it tried it could not get the land to do it.

Mr. Benyon: I take the point. Here we have an opportunity to turn the situation round. But if we have provisions for timber in Scotland different from those in England and in Wales, the situation will be far more difficult. I pay warm tribute to what the Forestry Commission has done. I am not among those who want to see it curtailed or abolished. It has provided a very fine partnership with private woodland on the one hand and State operation on the other. Under these provisions of the Bill, that situation stands in jeopardy.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman has twice said that the situation would be worse but he has not attempted to say why it would be.

Mr. Benyon: I said that it could be worse. Why should we run our heads


into this noose? We are not trying to do it with agriculture, but we are with forestry. We could leave land tenure as a devolved subject, as it is in agriculture, but why forestry? I say again that it could happen, although it need not. Why make it possible for it to happen? That is why I warmly support the amendment.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The courageous and powerful speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) has stated the position correctly in regard to forestry. Scotland possesses the land, it possesses the capability, it possesses a lot of the skills, and I do not take the pessimistic view expressed by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) that any change would be for the worse.
The very fact that the land is available and the resources are there must mean that forestry will be given far more attention. In this short debate, I shall not go into the reasons why forestry has not developed faster in Scotland, but, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West said, our import bill for timber must be one of the weakest points in economic planning within the United Kingdom. It is an import which could have been stopped, or at least reduced, with benefit to the balance of payments, had forestry been encouraged.
I am sure that as time goes by forestry and wood products of all kinds, including pulp, will become progressively more valuable, and as a world resource wood will become scarcer, so that forestry will grow in importance.
In my view, the Government should be given credit for deciding to devolve forestry to the Scottish Assembly, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will have the grace to withdraw his amendment. However, at the hinner end of this Committee stage, I take the opportunity of thanking him for giving us the opportunity to have a brief but useful debate on this important subject.

Mr. Galbraith: I had not intended to speak until I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) said. I represent a Glasgow constituency. My hon. Friend, whose views I cannot share, represents a constituency to the north of me, in Aber

deenshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who moved the amendment, represents a constituency in the south of Ayrshire.
Let me make clear at the outset that I agree with all that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West said about the importance of forestry. I am very much in favour of forestry. As he said, it offers us a way of saving on our import bill. On all those matters I agree. I differ from him, however, in his explanation of why there is less forestry in the whole of the United Kingdom and in Scotland than there might be. It has nothing to do with his suggested English connection that forestry is not as big in Scotland as it might be.

Mr. Fairgrieve: It has nothing to do with what my hon. Friend is getting at, either. It is a question of the geography and geology of the United Kingdom land mass. Let my hon. Friend look at the climate and see where the suitable areas are. I do not suggest that trees could be grown in vast numbers in England. It does not fit in.

Mr. Galbraith: It does not fit in? It fits in with almost every part of England. It fits in very well with certain parts of England, with certain parts of Ireland and with certain parts of Wales. For that reason, because it fits in very well with different parts of the United Kingdom, I agree firmly with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. I hope that my hon. Friend will not listen to the blandishments of the Scottish nationalists and ask leave to withdraw his amendment.
The two uses of land, forestry and farming, go together. The practical forester and the practical farmer do not want to deal with two different Departments. They want to deal with one, and they want it all done on a United Kingdom basis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) said.
I hope that the Minister will explain in practical terms why he has decided to split the two and give the forestry responsibility to the Assembly instead of leaving it on a United Kingdom basis, where it has done so well.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Done so well? Good heavens!

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, it has done well relatively, and it is doing relatively well, but it has great potential to do better if done on a United Kingdom basis.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Is my hon. Friend suggesting—

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member said that he had finished.

Sir John Gilmour: As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Ben-yon) said, we should have been discussing this on Group 15 on Schedule 10. The reason why we did not is that the Scottish National Party put down a lot of frivolous amendments to Part I and prevented the whole of the rest of Schedule 10 from being discussed at all. SNP Members are entirely responsible for having this Bill discussed in a most piecemeal and useless way. They put down amendments that are of no relevance to the discussion that should have taken place on Schedule 10.

Mr. Henderson: Your pals have done a lot of filibustering.

Sir J. Gilmour: I have made a few short contributions to this debate. There is no justification for that allegation.
I want to underline what my hon. Friends have said about the importance of forestry. What sticks out a mile, apart from our dependence on timber imports, which is one of our biggest burdens now that we have our own oil resources, is the fact that the timber we import comes mostly from the Communist world. We put ourselves at very great risk. We could find ourselves in the same situation as we were in during the oil crisis. If the Communist bloc decides not to fell any more trees and to hold up supplies because it will get more money in five, 10 or 15 years' time, this will increase considerably the amount of money that we have to spend.
We need to know the workings of forestry under devolution. Paragraph 20(2) of Schedule 16 says that any power of the Forestry Commissioners to make regulations includes power to make separate provisions for Scotland. Does this mean that with the devolved power of forestry, it will be possible to have different levels of maintenance and plant

ing grants in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom? Or is it just a form of words which says that the forestry powers devolved will apply to felling licences and amenity rather than the nitty gritty of actual financial work?
Most hon. Members will agree that the thing that makes the difference between whether people plant trees this year, next year or the year after is the impact of taxes. I understand that tax-paying powers will not be devolved. Therefore, it is presumably true that the whole financial aspect of forestry is still controlled by this House. I hope that the Minister of State, when he replies will tell us that the Secretary of State will still be the forestry Minister for Scotland and that we shall be able to put questions to him.
It is easy enough to devolve forestry, but it is not clear what the powers will be. I imagine that because neither agriculture nor fishing is to be devolved to the Assembly, having already been devolved to the EEC, if the EEC produces a forestry regime which this country accepts and adopts, we would have to claw back from the Scottish Assembly anything to do with forestry because we would be devolving it to the EEC.
10.15 p.m.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer this point. It relates to the set-back that we have experienced in forest-planting in past years. This has been due entirely to fiscal measures taken by the Labour Government. I am glad to see that the Government have seen the error of their ways. They have set up a committee which we hope will alleviate the difficulties. I believe that confidence is returning to those who are engaged in planting and that we can look forward with some confidence to the future. However, the matter still resides with the House of Commons.
I should like to have an explanation from the Minister of State on how the responsibilities for forestry are to be split between this House and the Assembly. Will he say which powers will be granted to the Assembly and which will remain with this House? I hope that the Minister will be able to give an explanation because the action we shall take on this amendment will depend upon his reply.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I regret that I missed the first part of the debate on forestry, but I should like to make one or two points on this amendment.
It appears that many of the officials who work for the Forestry Commission and who reside in my constituency would prefer to see an integrated forestry policy throughout the United Kingdom. It will be appreciated that those officials are not allowed to put forward their views because they are civil servants, but I am sure that the Committee will agree that there is no reason why I should not undertake that task for them.
There are others in my constituency who are engaged in the forestry business. One gentleman, a Mr. D. B. Crawford, has a small business connected with forestry and he has written a long treatise on the subject. He said in part of his remarks:
To maximise the production of food and wood in Britain, there must be a British integrated land use policy which takes fully into account both the problems and the potential of each of the three countries. This means in practical terms a uniform total strategy, and a relatively uniform system of grant aid and taxation.
There is a fear that while the EEC is working towards a common policy on forestry, this will be made more difficult if forestry matters are devolved to Scotland. There is a tremendous potential for forestry in Scotland. The Committee may be interested to know that 44 per cent. of forests in the United Kingdom are in Scotland, and the potential for development is primarily in Scotland. That is why the headquarters of the Forestry Commission has been kept in Scotland. Therefore, it must be recognised that a great deal of administrative devolution has already taken place.
I also wish to put on record the views of the Scottish Woodland Owners Association. That association is against devolution in respect of forestry. It says:
With Britain so heavily dependent upon imports of wood and wood products costing the nation some £2,000 million a year, an all-British forest policy and strategy is needed to build up home timber resources and make the country more self-sufficient".
The Association believes that the division of forestry by devolution into virtually three separate entities could dis

tort the timber market and create difficulties in siting new wood processing industries. I shall be grateful if the Minister will try to answer these points.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has done the Committee a service by tabling this amendment and allowing us to have a debate on forestry matters. This debate could more appropriately have taken place on Schedule 10, but the hon. Gentleman has rectified the situation by initiating this discussion.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) was in slight disagreement with some of his colleagues. I noticed how passionately and sincerely were his feelings in respect of forestry development. That was most evident from the way in which he spoke.
I have been asked a number of important questions. These matters have been reinforced by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) who said that since we had retained the matter of agriculture, we should also retain forestry matters. The answer is that there are special features in respect of agriculture which make it necessary for it to be retained. If those features did not exist, agriculture might be subject to devolution.
Indeed, the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) argued the case for the devolution of agriculture on the basis that it was a natural matter for devolution. I took issue with him on that occasion because the Government's involvement with agriculture is in financing agriculture. It is very difficult to make different arrangements for financing support systems in agriculture in different parts of the United Kingdom. That is the view of the farmers' unions in different parts of the United Kingdom. I know that the hon. Member for Dumfries is closely associated with the National Farmers' Union of Scotland.
There is also a very important aspect of the EEC involvement in agriculture which makes it necessary for it to be a United Kingdom responsibility. Post-devolution, the Secretary of State will continue to be responsible for agriculture. So it will be possible for the voice of Scottish agriculture as well as that of English agriculture to be heard. That


is the case for the retention of agriculture, with which the majority of the Committee agreed with the exception of hon. Members from the SNP, some Liberal Party Members and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns. But we do not think that the same criteria apply to forestry.
There are other matters which we have devolved and which the Committee has decided should be devolved. There is land use, agricultural land management, the countryside, tourism and rural development. With all these matters, forestry has quite a close connection. In deciding whether it should be a retained United Kingdom function or whether it should go to the Assembly we took into account its close links with those matters. It is closely involved with land use and agricultural land management, with the countryside, tourism and, perhaps increasingly, with tourism because the Forestry Commission does a number of imaginative things which assist with the development of tourism and rural development.
But there are some features—the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) mentioned some—that are retained by the United Kingdom Government. There is the fact that the tax system is not devolved. Responsibility for taxation and changes in taxation remains a United Kingdom matter. We had a long debate about that.
As to whether taxation should be retained by a United Kingdom Parliament, or any aspect of it, taxation arrangements with regard to forestry, which are of particular importance to the private forestry owners and developers, will remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. That is the main impact of Government so far as the private woodland owners are concerned.

Sir John Gilmour: Would that, therefore, mean that the Secretary of State will still answer Questions in this House about forestry matters because he is responsible for the financing of forestry?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Fife, East, if he were asking questions about taxation, would probably wish to ask them of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would certainly be able to do that following devolution. But the question of forestry being devolved depends on the

conventions at which the House arrives. We had a debate on that matter earlier. If it followed the Stormont precedent, I think general questions of forestry not related to the taxation aspect might not be appropriate to put to the Secretary of State because the Secretary of State post-devolution will not be the responsible Minister. That responsibility passes to the Scottish Secretary.
The hon. Gentleman was most concerned about taxation. He is quite right in emphasising that that is the matter of principal concern to the private woodland owners. He was generous enough to say that the Scottish Government had done a great deal to stimulate the development of private forestry.

Sir John Gilmour: One of the things that struck me was that we have always been able, if we are asking about forestry in England, even though it was a financial matter, to put our questions to the Minister of Agriculture because he was the Forestry Minister in England. But now we shall have a situation in which English Members of Parliament will be able to ask Questions of the Minister of Agriculture but Scottish Members of Parliament will not be able to ask Questions of the Secretary of State for Scotland. As long as that is understood, I am quite happy. But I think that we ought to understand that this is how we shall run our affairs in future.

Mr. Smith: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. If forestry is a devolved matter it is the responsibility of the Scottish Administration and the Scottish Assembly. The distinction, therefore, after devolution between agriculture and forestry would be that questions could be asked of the Secretary of State for Scotland about agriculture but not about forestry. It is a consequence of devolution that forestry is a devolved matter, in the same way as education will be the responsibility of the Assembly.

Mr. Galbraith: The Minister says "the same as education". Education is quite different. Here we have to consider the farmer. He is farming and he has animals and trees on his land. He does not want to have to deal with two different Ministries. He wants to deal with the same Ministry. In the House of Commons we wish to be able to cross-examine the same


Minister on the two aspects of the use of land.

Mr. Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman does not want devolution at all and wants it all to be dealt with in the House of Commons. When one has devolution, that involves the splitting of responsibility and the conferment of administrative and legislative responsibility on another body. It is inevitable that the scope of the United Kingdom Government is restricted in regard to the matters devolved. A transfer of responsibility is taking place. I say to the hon. Member that it is a consequence of devolution.
What the Committee is presently considering, and what we have to decide, is whether the Government were right to say that forestry, instead of going with agriculture and being a retained matter, should go with land use, agricultural land management, the countryside, tourism and rural development. We felt that the balance lay on the side that it should be a responsibility of the Assembly.
There are, though, some features of the arrangement that I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Dumfries. The Forestry Commission will be retained as a single unit. It is beyond the competence of the Assembly to set up a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland.

Mr. Sproat: If forestry is to be devolved to Scotland, will not that inevitably mean that the United Kingdom headquarters of forestry can no longer be in Scotland and will have to come back to England, and that, therefore, those jobs in Scotland will be lost? Or is the Minister seriously trying to tell English Members of the House of Commons not only that forestry will be devolved but that the United Kingdom headquarters will remain in Scotland? That is surely untenable.

Mr. Smith: I see no difficulty in the headquarters remaining in Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman is raising an unnecessary fear. I have no reason to think that the Forestry Commission believes that its headquarters in Edinburgh are in any way unsuitable. Many of its activities, take place in Scotland. It is a suitable administrative headquarters for the management of forestry responsibilities for

the whole of the United Kingdom. I see no difficulty whatsoever in forestry being managed by the Forestry Commission from its headquarters in Edinburgh, the Forestry Commission having acquired, not so long ago, headquarters in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), as he pointed out.

Mr. Monro: The Minister is putting forward an astonishing proposition. We shall have a United Kingdom Forestry Commission, yet forestry is to be run by the Assembly in Scotland. Will he explain further'?

Mr. Smith: It is not at all an astonishing proposition. The point that I was answering concerned the location of the headquarters. I see no reason why the: Forestry Commission cannot operate from Edinburgh. Indeed, it is a very desirable place from which it can operate, being a very desirable place in which to live and to work.
However, concerning the devolution of forestry, the Forestry Commission will be responsible for its Scottish activities to the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Administration, and for its English activities it will be responsible to the Minister of Agriculture, as is presently the situation. In the present system of Government, the Forestry Commission is responsible to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Secretary of State for Wales. I know that they are three Ministers in the same Government, but that recognises the Scottish, Welsh and English interests in the development of forestry. [Interruption.] I am trying to deal with the matter seriously. I do not know whether hon. Members are trying to prolong the debate.

Mr. John MacGregor: I have been listening with great interest because I have large Forestry Commission territory in my constituency in England. It seems to me that the Minister's position is extraordinary. At present the Forestry Commission is responsible to one Parliament, here at Westminster. Although all three Ministers come together, they at least come together in this House of Commons. The Minister is now suggesting that the Forestry Commission should remain as a single unit but should be responsible to two bodies,


this Parliament and an elected Assembly. What is the logic in that?

Mr. Smith: If we decided that forestry should be a devolved matter—and there are very strong reasons for that, which I have been developing—and should be the responsibility of the Scottish Assembly we had then to ask whether it should be within the competence of the Assembly to set up a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland. We thought that that would be undesirable, so in the Bill it is beyond the competence of the Assembly to create a separate Forestry Commission so that we would have two Forestry Commissions operating in the United Kingdom. We have safeguarded against that possibility.
That may not please some hon. Members on the nationalist Bench, but I am sure that the general view of the Committee is that we have taken a wise decision. We see no reason why the Assembly cannot be responsible for forestry in Scotland. Some Conservative Members may criticise our proposal, but I suggest that they should have a word with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West about this matter.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am not trying to catch the Minister out, but I should like some information. Who will appoint the members of the Forestry Commission? Will some be appointed by this House and some by the Assembly or will they all be appointed as they are at present?

Mr. Smith: I understand that the Scottish Administration will appoint some members but I am not sure about that. I shall check and write to the hon. Gentleman.
The main point is on which side of the line forestry should go. We have concluded that it would be wise to have it on the devolved side and we have built into that decision a number of factors, including the provisions that there should be a single commission, that the taxation system, which is the principal interest of the private sector, should be reserved and that we should also reserve plant health, since tree disease is no respecter of boundaries.
Obviously there can be legitimate arguments about whether forestry should go with agriculture or elsewhere. We concluded that it would be wiser for it to go with agriculture, given its close connection with rural development, land use and tourism.
Weighing up the matter and considering the advantages and disadvantages, we consider that it would be right to retain the provisions in the Bill. If the amendment were passed, forestry would be reserved. I do not know whether the amendment was put down to enable us to have a general discussion or in an attempt to change the Bill. Certainly, if it were accepted, it would wreck the devolution of forestry. That may be its purpose. It is certainly not a technical amendment. It goes to the root of the matter.
I shall write to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) about the appointment of members of the Commission. I think that they are appointed by Her Majesty, but I am not sure.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister also tell me what good he thinks will come of this. He has admitted that it will lead to an administrative shambles.

Mr. Smith: That is a misrepresentation of what I said. That may be the hon. Gentleman's sincerely held opinion, but it is not an accurate portrayal of what I have been saying. We think that it will work perfectly well. Some of the arrangements may be beyond the comprehension of some hon. Members opposite, but we believe that forestry should be devolved and that the Assembly should have responsibility for it because of its close links with other matters. I understand that there may be legitimate differences of opinion about that.
One of the differences between this Bill and the Scotland and Wales Bill is that the Forestry Commission now falls into the category of the bodies in Schedule 13 with which consultation has to take place before orders implementing devolution go through. The Commission believes that to be a useful advantage.

Sir John Gilmour: Will the Minister answer two questions that I put to him earlier? Paragraph 20(2) refers to:
Any power of the Forestry Commissioners to make regulations under Part II of that


Act includes power to make regulations making separate provision as regards Scotland.
We ought to know what sort of regulations can be made under this paragraph.
If it means that we can have separate levels of planting grants and maintenance grants in Scotland that the Assembly passes, presumably out of its block grant, that is something that the Committee should know about. If that is not made known, we are devolving forestry without giving any power to the Assembly. Surely the hon. Gentleman should be able to tell us that.
Secondly, if the House of Commons were to accept an EEC forestry regime, would we have to take back the devolvment of forestry from the Assembly? We have not devolved agriculture and fishing because they are matters to be discussed by the Council of Ministers in the EEC. Therefore, if we accepted an EEC forestry regime, presumably we should have to bring back forestry and put it entirely into the control of the House of Commons.

Mr. Younger: We are most grateful to the Minister of State for answering the debate. In the course of his remarks the hon. Gentleman asked us to treat the matter seriously. I believe that the Committee would completely break faith with itself if it did not treat it as an extremely serious matter.
The hon. Gentleman's reply—I am sure that it was offered in good faith—revealed a most extraordinary muddle. When I moved the amendment I never believed that we would get anything remotely like that which has been put before us. I take that view against the background of every viewpoint within the forestry industry being opposed to the devolving of forestry.
The Government have apparently thought out these matters as carefully as they can. That is what the Minister said. Having done that, they have come up with a solution that Messrs. Gilbert and Sullivan would have been overjoyed to invent. It is not as if they are sticking to their convictions and fully devolving forestry. They have decided that they cannot do that and have kept one Forestry Commission. I am glad that they are doing so, but that decision contradicts the idea of having two separate political bodies—namely, the House of Commons

and the Scottish Assembly—possibly with separate forms of political control, controlling one industry. If we have one body situated in Edinburgh that does not have complete control at either one end or the other, a greater and more obvious recipe for chaos for forestry, whether we are for devolution or against it, would be hard to devise.
Let us consider the parliamentary side. The Minister has admitted that we shall not be able to table Questions or in other ways to question Ministers about Scottish forestry. That is because it will be a devolved matter and will come under the Assembly. However, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) would no doubt be quick to remind us yet again, those who represent Scottish seats will be able solemnly to table Questions on English forestry matters. The answers will be dreamed up by the Forestry Commission, which will be one body for both parts of the country.
It seems that the Government have not begun to think through the implications of what they are trying to do. I must ask them to return to the fact that the forestry industry is one industry. There is no way in which anyone can get away from the fact that it is one industry. It is serving one market. It is in one country where the same sort of laws apply throughout. The Minister has admitted that the same tax laws will affect forestry north and south of the border, and for that matter in Wales, which no doubt we shall consider when we discuss Welsh devolution. However, the Scottish Assembly and the House will have the power to have different systems of grant for the two different parts of the forestry industry that will be administered by the same commission. The whole thing is a muddle.
The Minister must face the fact that if we are to have two different sources of political control for one industry there will be different policies. The Assembly could decide, if it gets this power, to have different systems of support for forestry.

Mr. Millan: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Younger: There is nothing wrong with that if the whole of it is devolved. But we are to have it half devolved, and the Secretary of State will ask the same


single Forestry Commission to administer it in some way not yet specified. I do not know what authority officials in the Forestry Commission will have over the officers on the ground. We have no time to go into that matter tonight.
If the same officials are to be obliged to operate two different systems from one office and one headquarters under one director, with one board of commissioners appointed jointly by these two bodies, it is inconceivable that it will work properly. It would be like running one industry with two different boards of directors, two different sources of control, two different policies, two different lists of products and two different methods of work.
The Minister said that he weighed up the balance whether forestry should more logically go with agriculture or with the other functions associated with it, such as the countryside, tourism and so on. That is a legitimate argument. But it is perverse to say that these other functions are more likely to be correctly allied with forestry and to ignore the one most obviously allied with it.
It is not as though it were a new idea that agriculture and forestry are closely allied one with the other. The Minister of State and the Secretary of State will be aware that there have frequently been great controversies in various parts of Scotland whether the emphasis on land use in a particular an area should be on agriculture, sheep farming or forestry. Yet, after weighing up all these matters, the Government have concluded that it is correct to divide agriculture and forestry in this way. The Minister has failed to put forward an argument that will make sense to those who work in forestry.
Has the Minister had any representations from anyone involved in forestry in favour of the devolution of forestry in this way? Has anyone involved in forestry said that it is a good idea? I think that the answer will be "No". Therefore, it is all the more surprising that he has gone against all the facts by making this proposal.
Forestry is a single industry that requires a single set of policies. If not, there will be differing methods of work,

different levels of support and different prices eventually.
I ask the Secretary of State, in his capacity as Scotland's Minister with responsibility for the economy, to consider the attraction of setting up timber-using industries. If there are two separate policies north and south of the border—not to mention Wales—are there not likely to be two separate methods of attracting timber-using industries to the different countries? There will be nothing to prevent the English branch of the Forestry Commission—I nearly said English Forestry Commision, but it is to be the British Forestry Commission—dictated by the House of Commons, whose political control could make the decision, from introducing special incentives or inducements to attract timber-using industries to England. There will be nothing to prevent it from situating them in the north of England so that they can compete with and have an effect on the industry in Scotland. The only link between the two will be the people working in the Forestry Commission headquarters, and they will be torn this way and that by two bodies having different political control and pulling in different directions.
The debate has been more useful than I thought it would be. I thought that the Minister would have a perfectly calming and rational explanation of how he had thought the whole matter out, that he would be able to give us good reasons for developing forestry and that the Government had thought out a smooth method for administering this great industry that would lead to its future expansion and prosperity. We must remember that it is not only a question of having two different divisions—although we do not want to go into that because of the time—but there will be three different branches if it is proposed to devolve Welsh forestry, which is undesirable.
10.45 p.m.
The Secretary of State is Scotland's Economic Minister. What about regional policies? The Secretary of State has rightly retained most of the functions of regional development, and I personally support that. What sort of job will he have in trying to weld forestry development into his general regional development policies if he has to deal with two different policies? It will be very difficult.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) made an excellent point in his speech and again a few moments ago when he asked what would be the position when there is an EEC forestry regime. We all know that the EEC does not have a forestry regime, but if it gets one, what wil happen about the devolved part of forestry?

Mr. Millan: Can the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) tell the Committee what the EEC forestry regime would be about?

Mr. Younger: My powers are admired widely, but it is not my job to devise an EEC forestry policy. I have been accused of having delusions of grandeur but I cannot claim to be able to do that.

Sir John Gilmour: We have already debated an EEC forestry policy in a Committee of the House. The EEC has a policy which would take land out of agriculture and put it into forestry.

Mr. Younger: The Secretary of State must know that there is talk of devising an EEC forestry policy. The Secretary of State must face the fact that the industry is likely to be the subject of an EEC policy. If he survives as Minister for that length of time he might be involved.
Let us suppose that such a policy is developed, that the Government of the day agree to it and that it is introduced into this country. What would be the position? We should have devolved forestry in Scotland and the Assembly would have complete authority for dealing with these matters. This is yet another matter which has not been thought through and the Minister has not given a sensible answer tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East asked that question and the Minister cannot answer it. I look forward to his reply.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is raising a bogy. There are likely to be common EEC regulations to deal with education and the health services, which are to be devolved. That would not be a problem.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Member may be right in that. The thought of a common EEC health policy, given all the

difficulties we have experienced in trying to devise one just for this country in recent years is looking a bit too far ahead.

Mr. Smith: There are plans in the EEC to harmonise many health matters. The hon. Gentleman cannot dismiss them so lightly.

Mr. Younger: There are plans in the EEC to harmonise many things in all sorts of subjects. None of that prevents the Minister from having to face up to the fact that there may well be a forestry policy for which the Bill makes no allowance.
When I opened the debate I hoped that the Minister would explain simply what scheme the Government had worked out for the operation of forestry. I thought that he would assure me that he had taken account of the objections expressed by those in forestry to what was proposed in the Bill. I hoped, too, that he would assure me that he had listened to what was said today and would think again about what could be done later to improve matters. But none of that has happened.
The Minister has shown that the scheme the Government have come up with is muddled. They have not thought through its implications, and they have paid not the slightest attention to what anyone from forestry—people who want nothing to do with the Bill—have said. Unless the Minister's second speech is far more acceptable, I advise the Committee to vote for the amendment.

Mr. John Smith: I was under the impression that certain hon. Members wanted to move on to another topic, but it now seems that Opposition Front and Back Benchers want to keep this debate going until 11 o'clock. That may be an unworthy thought on my part, but it crossed my mind.

Mr. Robert Adley: The Minister will know as well as anyone how anxious I am to debate tourism. But I have listened with great interest to the discussion on forestry and I would not for one moment wish to suggest that there had been even half a minute of filibustering.
The Secretary of State chastised me the other day for trying to discuss tourism. He suggested that I should wait until


Clause 67 to do that. That clause was guillotined. It is nothing short of scandalous that in a perfectly proper debate the Minister has failed to give an adequate answer to my hon. Friend, and that, as a result, it is clear at eight minutes to eleven that there will be no time to discuss important issues surrounding the change in the constitution of the British Tourist Authority. That is quite wrong.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member should reflect on the fact that long interventions such as his do not assist my efforts to reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) asked about planting policy for forestry under the devolved Administration. It would be possible for the Scottish Administration to spend more money on the development of forestry and perhaps to devise a bigger programme than would have been devised by the United Kingdom Government. It would take funds from its block grant for the purpose.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the effect of the EEC on forestry. I am not aware of any well-developed EEC policy on forestry. The effect of such a policy would depend on what that policy was. It is therefore difficult to gauge the effect. I find difficulties arising from that.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I indicated in my earlier remarks on the question of forestry that, leaving aside devolution, there was ample evidence that forestry might be better devolved to the EEC, which has a successful record on forestry compared with that of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Smith: I do not think that the EEC has any direct responsibility for the development of forestry. As far as I am aware—I am open to correction on this—there is not a policy among the EEC countries on forestry development. I find it hard to see that there would be intervention by way of regulation or directive on forestry matters in the way that there is in agriculture. Agriculture is the one function in the EEC in which there is heavy intervention by the Commission and by the Council of Ministers. Some of the critics of the EEC say that it is the only part of the arrangement that

works. Some say that it works badly. It depends on one's opinion. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) must have some very interesting discussions about that with his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). There is that difference between agriculture and forestry to which I have drawn attention.
I have tried to answer the EEC point and the one concerning the responsibility that the Assembly would have for the development of forestry. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may not agree with what I have said but I cannot fairly be accused of not having answered these points.

Mr. Benyon: A planting grant is a subsidy. Could the Assembly change the planting grants, that is to say, a subsidy?

Mr. Smith: Yes, I think that could be done. That is a part of the devolution of forestry to the Scottish Assembly.

Sir John Gilmour: The initial amount of money for the planting grant will be provided in the block grant, but any increase will have to come by drawing it out of some other service.

Mr. Smith: The Assembly must arrive at its own decision. That is central to the whole thing. After having received the block grant from the United Kingdom Parliament, it will be for the Assembly to decide which priorities to follow. It may decide that forestry should be given a higher or a lower priority.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr Fairgrieve) takes the view that successive British Governments have failed to develop forestry properly. I understand and respect his sincerity, but it is not just the development of forestry that we are discussing tonight. It is whether, in making this important constitutional change, forestry should be retained with the United Kingdom Government and Parliament or be one of the subjects devolved to the Scottish Assembly.
I am aware that there has been a substantial argument put up from another part of the House that some of the other functions which are to be devolved, and which are highly pertinent to this matter, such as land use, agricultural management, the countryside, and tourism, have not been—[Interruption.] I have not heard the argument put outwith the House that


these subjects should not be devolved—[Interruption.] It would have been quite possible for the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) within the context of his argument tonight, to submit that these subjects should not have been devolved.—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman, with great respect, has sufficient skill to keep within the rules of order. Indeed, it would have been entirely proper for him to discuss these matters as well, because there is a clear link between forestry and the responsibility for the countryside, tourism, land use and rural development.
Earlier in the debate, hon. Members were concerned with the Forestry Commission and its operations, and also with the private woodland owners. On the private side, especially relating to taxation, the hon. Member for Fife, East—

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Sir Myer. May I, at 10.59 p.m., at the very last minute of the debate, seek your advice and guidance? How on earth, under these procedures, can there be any way in which to discuss the many important matters which have not been discussed, particularly the question of tourism—[Interruption.]—which has been—

The First Deputy Chairman: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that I shall discharge my duties as the House has decided them on the question of the guillotine.

Mr. Smith: We have had a fairly long debate on this matter. The hon. Member for Ayr arrived almost with a certain amount of surprise to find that there was a debate on forestry tonight. Perhaps he was not alert enough to see the possibilities which this generous allocation of time allowed—

It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made—

The Committee proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Adley: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Myer. I am sorry to return to this matter, which I raise as a Back Bencher. You may or may not have been in the Chair the other day when the Secretary of State for Scotland himself chastised me for, as he put it, wasting time and thus preventing us from reaching Clause 67, which totally changes the role and function of the British Tourist Authority. The Secretary of State was a party to the debate on that evening, the result of which was that we were not able to debate the matter then.
We have had exactly the same procedure tonight. What are Back Benchers to do when Ministers on one night ask them not to make speeches, so that they may later raise subjects which are subsequently guillotined, and then when we hope to have a final opportunity, the same thing happens? Is not this making a farce of democracy on an important subject?

The First Deputy Chairman: All I can say is that it is not a matter for the Chair. The Chair has no control over the length of speeches, although I have indicated on many occasions that I have often wished it had such a power. Therefore, there is nothing I can do with regard to the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Mr. Adley: (seated and covered): Can you explain to me, Sir Myer, how it is possible to make people outside the House understand how the House cannot find time to debate such an important matter?

The First Deputy Chairman: I dare say that, with 635 Members, we should have 635 different explanations. It is for each individual hon. Member to explain the position.

The Committee having divided

Ayes 215, Noes 255.

Division No. 91]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Alison, Michael
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bradford, Rev Robert


Arnold, Tom
Benyon, W.
Braine, Sir Bernard


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Biffen, John
Brittan, Leon


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Awdry, Daniel
Blaker, Peter
Brooke, Peter


Baker, Kenneth
Body, Richard
Brotherton, Michael


Banks, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Bell, Ronald
Bottomley, Peter
Bryan, Sir Paul




Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Higgins, Terence L.
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Buck, Antony
Hodgson, Robin
Pink, R. Bonner


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carson, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Timothy


Channon, Paul
Hurd, Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Clegg, Walter
Joseph, Rt Hon sir Keith
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cockroft, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhodes, James R.


Cope, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Cormack, Patrick
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Critchley, Julian
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crouch, David
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Tim


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Drayson, Burnaby
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Colin


Durant, Tony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shersby, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Silvester, Fred


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Luce, Richard
Sims, Roger


Emery, Peter
McCrindle, Robert
Sinclair, Sir George


Eyre, Reginald
McCusker, H.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Farr, John
MacGregor, John
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Spence, John


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Sproat, Iain


Forman, Nigel
Marten, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Stanley, John


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Peter
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D.


Goodlad, Alastair
Molyneaux, James
Trotter, Neville


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Viggers, Peter


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wall, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David
Warren, Kenneth


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony
Wells, John


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Newton, Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Onslow, Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hon George


Hawkins, Paul
Page, Richard (Workington)



Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Pattie, Geoffrey
Sir George Young and


Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian
Mr Anthony Berry.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Coleman, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Concannon, Rt Hon John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boardman, H.
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Armstrong, Ernest
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Corbett, Robin


Ashley, Jack
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Ashton, Joe
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crawford, Douglas


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Crawshaw, Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Buchan, Norman
Cryer, Bob


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davidson, Arthur


Bates, Alf
Canavan, Dennis
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Bean, R. E.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil


Beith, A. J.
Cartwright, John
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Clemitson, Ivor
Deakins, Eric


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Bidwell, Sydney
Cohen, Stanley
Dempsey, James




Doig, Peter
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rose, Paul B.


Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamborn, Harry
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


Dunn, James A.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sedgemore, Brian


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sever, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Eadie, Alex
Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Luard, Evan
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Evans, John (Newton)
MacCormick, Iain
Snape, Peter


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spearing, Nigel


Fairgrieve, Russell
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Faulds, Andrew
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stallard, A. W.


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Flannery, Martin
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Stoddart, David


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stott, Roger


Forrester, John
McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Madden, Max
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Magee, Bryan
Surmmerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Freud, Clement
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Swain, Thomas


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marks, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


George, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Golding, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Gould, Bryan
Meacher, Michael
Thompson, George


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Graham, Ted
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tierney, Sydney


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tinn, James


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, Austin
Tomlinson, John


Grocott, Bruce
Molloy, William
Torney, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Moyle, Roland
Ward, Michael


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Watkins, David


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Watkinson, John


Henderson, Douglas
Newens, Stanley
Watt, Hamish


Hooson, Emlyn
Noble, Mike
Weetch, Ken


Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon
Weitzman, David


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Orbach, Maurice
Welsh, Andrew


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, James (Pollok)


Huckfield, Les
Ovenden, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Park, George
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parry, Robert
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Penhaligon, David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Perry, Ernest
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson Gordon (Dundee E)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Radice, Giles
Wilson. Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


John, Brynmor
Reid, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woodall, Alec


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Woof, Robert


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Judd, Frank
Rooker, J. W.
Mr James Hamilton and


Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John
Mr Joseph Harper


Kerr, Russell

Question accordingly negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.

Whereupon The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended to the House, pursuant to Order [16th November].

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended to be considered tomorrow and to be printed, [Bill 51].

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (DRIVERS' HOURS RULES)

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Community Drivers' Hours Rules (Temporary Modifications) Regulations 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 7), dated 4th January 1978, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th January, be annulled.
On the last occasion when we debated the question of drivers' hours and distances, we were given a semi-assurance by the Government that they would press for a full debate to be held on the subject. On 4th April the Under-Secretary of State said:
I should like to give the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield an assurance that I shall certainly make representations to my right hon. Friend the Lord President about a debate, but finally it is for my right hon. Friend to decide in his own due time."—[Official Report, 4th April 1977; Vol. 929, c. 1069.]
We have now seen what those representations have produced—a debate which starts at 11.16 and which must end at 12.30 a.m.
It was open to the Government to lay a draft of the regulations for approval in both Houses, and I believe that that is a point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) will wish to say something, if he catches the eye of the Chair. We have put down our Prayer because this is the only option left open to us.
Given the restriction of time, I shall seek to be brief. Let me make our intention clear from the outset. The regulations allow a phased introduction of the EEC regulations on drivers' hours and distances. There are serious reservations about those regulations throughout the whole transport industry—road haulage, freight transport and passenger transport—and there are serious reservations about the details of the transition period.
However, we are presented tonight, basically, with a take-it-or-leave-it situation. Everyone I have consulted would prefer this transition period to no transition period at all, so the Opposition will not seek to divide the House at the end of the debate. We shall, however, examine the detail of the transition period

and, above all, seek a statement from the Government. It is worth making the point that, in spite of the undoubted importance of these regulations, this is the first time that the Government have come to the House to make a statement about them.
Because of the time element I shall concentrate on one major issue—the distance limit of 450 km in one day. The fact that there is a 450 km limit being introduced immediately contradicts the expressed hope of the Secretary of State. He is on record expressing confidence to the industry that the limit would not come in at all during the transitional period, or if it did, that it would not come in at once. The Secretary of State made that clear in the middle of last year, but he has not delivered the goods on that undertaking. I hope that he will tell us the factors that have made it impossible.
We have today a position of undoubted confusion. No decision was available to the industry until 5th January, relating to a phased programme that started a few days earlier, on 1st January.
It is important to stress the seriousness of the 450 km limit. It is obviously serious for road haulage operators in Scotland, just as it is for those in the South-West. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has pointed out that great concern is felt in his constituency, where the main markets for local products are more than 280 miles away. A similar point was made by the National Farmers' Union. The West Country already suffers severe competition from Continental producers. Obviously there is concern throughout the country about this matter.

Mr. John Evans: Is the hon. Member aware that the 450 km limit was laid down by the EEC in 1969. As the Conservative Party took us into the Common Market, would he tell the House what representations his party made about this iniquitous limit in 1972?

Mr. Fowler: We dealt with that point in Question Time. If the hon. Member wants to take it up with the Secretary of State, I hope he will ask his Front Bench what happened under the Labour Government in the renegotiations. We are debating the transitional period tonight, and I would very much hope that there is common ground between the two sides


of the House in adopting a constructive approach.
It may be said that the 450 km rule could be avoided if one of two conditions are met. It may be avoided if there is a second driver, but the difficulty of that is that it pushes costs through the roof. Few firms will be able to offer that solution, particularly those that are suffering severe price competition already.
The second alternative is that the rule may be avoided by the fitting of a tachograph. That brings us into an area of undoubted complication. There are practical difficulties involved, apart from anything else. There are not even remotely enough calibration centres in this country. Even if operators wanted to observe the rule, they would find great difficulty in doing so. In Scotland there are only two or three centres, and the Freight Transport Association says that some of its members have to drive 200 miles to get to one. The same position applies in other parts of the country as well.
The next problem is the opposition of the Transport and General Workers' Union to the introduction of the tachograph. Again, operators are in all kinds of difficulties and the Government has put forward a compromise solution which euphemistically is called relaxation enforcement, although I do not like a situation in which the law says one thing and the enforcement authorities do another. It seems to me that that is the only possible compromise in the immediate future. I accept that, but I make this proviso—that everybody should be clear what the enforcement position is to be. This is a call that comes from all sides of industry. They want to know exactly where they stand in this unique and certainly unusual situation.
The Freight Transport Association would like to see a position where there is first a six-month general moratorium on enforcement which is in line with the Secretary of State's proposals, and, secondly, a 12-month stay on enforcement in respect of the 450 km limit, although the other requirements would come into force after six months. That proposal has been to the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will take the opportunity now to make the Government's position clear.
The position we must accept is that whether it is after six months or 12 months, sooner or later the 450 km rule will come into force. Therefore, we return to the question: what do the Government advise, how do they intend to help, and how do they see the situation?
It appears that probably the only way forward is for the road haulage companies and the unions to come to voluntary agreement at local level on the issue of tachographs. This is the view of John Silverman, Vice-Chairman of the Road Haulage Association, who made a statement on 26th November in which he said:
I would welcome trade union co-operation in the fitting of tachographs by agreement locally between labour and management.
He continued:
I appeal to the responsible leaders of the trade unions whose members are engaged in road haulage urgently to rethink the situation and to concede quickly that it is in their own interests as well as ours to keep lorries working effectively to the maximum they are allowed to do within the new law. This means fitting tachographs, for which I plead trade union agreement.
I understand that that basically is also the Government's position.
On 5th January, when the Secretary of State issued his Press release on EEC drivers' hours, he said:
Now is the time for employers and trade unions to get together to make sense of the new situation. The health of the industry both on the freight and passenger sides is important to the strength and prosperity of the nation. We must now all accept the Commission's decision and show common sense and goodwill in working out the implication.
That is all very well, and in general terms they are reasonable and sensible words, but it would be for the benefit of the House and for the industry if the Secretary of State for Transport could be more specific tonight. Will he say whether he agrees that the voluntary agreement on the use of tachographs is or is not a way forward?
Many other points could be raised if there were time in this short debate. For example, many will be concerned about the position of the passenger transport industry. Although the debate inevitably centres on the road haulage industry, it is worth stressing that these regulations will affect not only road haulage but the bus and coach industry and, as applied, they threaten the existence of some


services—for example, the service from London to Stratford-on-Avon. What the Confederation of Passenger Transport wants above all is more flexibility to be given to the operator. I hope the Minister will say something on that matter.
In deference to other hon. Members, I confine myself to these two points. Will the Minister make crystal clear the position on the enforcement of these regulations because that is in the interests of the whole industry? Secondly, will he spell out his view on the introduction of tachographs and voluntary introduction and say where the Government stand? There is no question but that the industry wants some guidance from the Secretary of State. I think that it is entitled to some guidance from him. I hope that tonight it will get that guidance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): In view of the number of hon. Members wishing to take part in the debate, I appeal for brevity in speeches.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: Tonight I shall try to speak very quietly, because generally I get a bit passionate about these things when we get involved with the Common Market.
This is a very serious situation. I have taken part in many of these debates when we have not had the necessary documents before us or they have been the wrong documents, and so on. But tonight is a special night when the absurdity of the Common Market reaches new heights.
Because we have gone through these matters, the House of Commons has a procedure that says that we refer them to the Statutory Instruments Committee for examination. We have been overtaken by events. The Order Paper is always worth looking at. It says:
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments have not yet completed their consideration of the Instrument.
On 5th January, the Minister said:
Five years after United Kingdom entry to the Common Market we now know the final timetable for the implementation of regulations on drivers' hours. We have had a welcome breathing space although I wish that the programme for the next three years had been more generous. Now is the time for employers and trade unions to get together to make sense of the new situation. The health of the industry both on the freight and trans

port sides is important to the strength and prosperity of the nation. I have tried hard in negotiations in Brussels to create a tolerable framework for the future. We must now all accept the Commission's decision and show common sense and good will in working out the implications.
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is quite right. It is important that it goes on record.
But then, on 11th January, the Minister said:
In spite of the transitional arrangements, adaptation to the wholly new legal structure and to the changes in actual limits that apply from this month cannot in practice be achieved immediately. A period of six months for `running in' is clearly sensible."—[Official Report, 11th January 1978; Vol. 941, c. 767.]
What we are talking about here is men. I have been in contact with my colleagues in the Transport and General Workers' Union. They are sensible people, despite the phrases often used about them. They want to improve the conditions and pay, and so on, of the drivers they represent. But in these matters they do not want to be faced with some regulation being brought in and no one knowing what it is, and suddenly drivers in a specific area being told that it is being introduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) knows that there is a very serious situation. A deputation came to the House because people were suddenly told that they would not be able to work existing work schedules as from January. It meant that if they were taking containers from Grimsby to Hull and back again, they would have to stop 40 miles short. The impact on wages is considerable.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Despite the Humber Bridge, I think that my hon. Friend means Grimsby to Liverpool.

Mr. Ellis: Yes, I am sorry. However, all sorts of complicated things would affect their wages, and they had not had time to negotiate.
Let us look at what the employers have said. I refer now to the Freight Transport Association. It says:
The Regulations which are to be debated on Wednesday evening are helpful in so far as they will allow a phased adoption of the onerous EEC requirements. Having said that, the whole drivers' hours situation is still far from


certain and confusion abounds in the industry. The Regulations, which officially come into operation on 26th January are still not available, and indeed it appears that there is some doubt as to the official numbering because the Order quotes S.I. 6/78, whereas the typescript of the Regulation in the Association's possession is numbered 7/78!
Therefore, we are in a position in which some people are saying one thing and others are saying other things. Prior to the October meeting—this is the Commission talking—there was a threat by the Commission to introduce proceedings for breaches of Regulation 543/69 in the case of Germany for a breach of the 450 km. provision, and following the October meeting decision the Commission was directed to work out the phasing-in period of the different provisions concerning the United Kingdom and Southern Ireland.
So we go into January, and still nothing is decided. It is coming into effect now. What a ludicrous situation—what a bureaucratic situation—that causes this appalling difficulty.
I know what the attitude of the TGWU is. Their leaders have had some criticism from their members, asking what the union was doing and what Parliament was doing to get us into this state.
I have explained what happened. Commissioners did or did not take decisions. Faced with a position like this, late in January, no appeal could be made. Certain regulations were imposed, with the consequence that we are in this position tonight.
We are glad that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) is not going to take his Prayer to a vote, but we regard the position as totally unsatisfactory. The union thinks that it is completely unsatisfactory. If we refused to bring in these regulations tonight, however, I understand that the whole of Council Regulation 543/69 would come into operation. I can tell the House that if that happened there would be a strike in the transport industry—a strike of tremendous proportions, not because of any irresponsibility on the part of the men in the industry but because we could not tell them that this new law was coming into effect merely because somebody in the Commission had done something, in the course of exceedingly complicated negotiations—something that we could not explain to them properly. We could not then go on to say "Deal

with it by way of a nod and a wink, although this regulation replaces part of the Transport Act 1968 steps will be taken in consultation with both sides of the road transport industry to see that the position is taken care of "—in other words—" We agree that this is the law, but we will do nothing about it. We will write letters to chief constables saying that although there can be prosecutions we shall not be able to follow them up because wo do not know what the Community has done, or what the details are."

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the hon. Member agree that this is what happens—this abuse of the rule of law—when this House has lost its power to make the law for this country?

Mr. Ellis: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. In this respect the Opposition are failing in their duty. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is tarred with the brush of the Common Market. He helped to get us into this system. The two Front Benches had Back Benchers pointing out the error of their ways. They fell between two stools. The Opposition cannot do their job properly, because they have a responsibility to get Common Market regulations accepted by the House.
Let me tell hon. Members what the union is trying to do. It has had a meeting and it is doing its best. It has issued the following statement:
After considering all aspects and consequences, the National Trade Group Committee decided the following policy:—
There is no change in the RTC Group policy in its total opposition to tachographs on domestic journeys (members should not allow themselves to believe otherwise).
That the assurances given by the Secretary of State for Transport as to the phasing-in period should be accepted until proven otherwise.
Any notice of a pending prosecution under the 450 kilometre provision should be notified to the National Secretary, who has been requested to inform the Secretary of State for Transport of the same.
It is saying that it will not see its members prosecuted under regulations introduced at two minutes' notice and on which they, as responsible men, were not consulted. They are willing to negotiate, but have been denied the opportunity to do so. The union says:
Negotiators in all companies in which an incentive bonus scheme operates are to commence discussions with the company or companies concerned:


(a) to establish whether any loss arises for the category of driver and vehicle referred to in the 450 kilometer provision.
(b) if any loss is entailed, to negotiate forthwith consolidation of any such monies on the particular journies concerned."
These are huge areas of negotiation which may take many months. They are difficult matters to negotiate, even between men of good will. The union continues:
That the National Secretary prepares a comprehensive submission as requested, in conjunction with members of the National Trade Group Committee.
That the action taken by the General Secretary and the National Secretary in gaining support of all transport unions and the Commission within the European Community to replace Regultion No. 543/69 with a more acceptable directive is endorsed; and this National Trade Group Committee calls on the Commission to produce the aforesaid draft directive without further delay.
My union talked with the unions over there and it feels harshly about the Commission because it was given assurances that these matters would be looked at. In the event, it got nothing for its pains.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just a question of the powers of Parliament being challenged but that, in addition, a wide range of trade union agreements will be affected by some of these regulations?

Mr. Ellis: Indeed. These are fundamental and serious matters that cannot be changed at a minute's notice without trade unions and employers knowing what is hoped to be achieved and so on.
I know that the Minister is doing his best, but the directive that he is to put forward is not yet available. It is all very unsatisfactory.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I like the regulations very little more than the hon. Gentleman does, but he has been talking about suddenness and the lack of notice in connection with proposals that should have come into force two years ago and have been postponed three times at the behest of the United Kingdom Government, in their reluctance to have anything to do with the Common Market, as well as of Ireland.

Mr. Ellis: People were arguing about whether the draft directive was realistic. The question whether it should be

changed fundamentally was being argued. That is the point. Under the EEC's funny law, if no agreement is reached, certain things happen automatically. If a meeting breaks down or only part of a problem is solved, the whole holocaust descends.
It was put to me graphically by a union man who said that we were making life intolerable for him by chopping off his legs, but that if the Opposition's Prayer succeeded, we would be chopping off his head as well. That is the brutal situation we face.
I spent half a day with my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby talking to honourable men about this problem. They are affected and we could not give straight answers to their straight questions about how their pay and conditions would be affected if this proposal came into law.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is one of the hon. Members who consented to Britain joining the Common Market. He got us into this situation and it ill behoves him to criticise the Government now. His Government knew that these provisions were around. The hon. Gentleman finished by saying that we are passing a law but that we should try to see that it is not enforced.
We are in a terrible position. I always thought that, when a law was introduced, it had been considered and that the ramifications were known, yet we find ourselves in a considerable dilemma. Many of my hon. Friends who know of my close interest in these matters, and my close contacts with my union, have asked "What should we do?" I replied "If somebody pushes the prayer, we shall have to vote against it and support the order". The truth is that we find ourselves in a disastrous situation.
To those who still believe in the Common Market I repeat what I have said about it throughout—that it is bureaucratic and unworkable. Surely it is up to us to say after this debate "It is a shambles. Please stop this sort of thing happening".

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend is saying that we have to pass the measure before us because the situation would be even worse if we carried the Prayer. He said that, as we are defenceless, we should be placed in a


position in which we should face wholesale strikes. Does my hon. Friend understand that the advancement of the trade union movement throughout its history has not always been the result of activity in the House? Perhaps some people outside should take action against the Common Market and its activities, the like of which have caused my hon. Friend to be so upset. I put it to him that it may be our duty to throw out this measure to support the Prayer and hope that it is carried. In that event, let us see some activity at ground level from those who were misled in the 1975 referendum. Let them provide the means for finally getting us out of the Market.

Mr. Ellis: I fully understand my hon. Friend's argument. Many of those at ground level to whom he refers did not understand the Common Market. They knew the way in which we conducted our affairs and they had enormous respect for the law. They are now bemused. They do not understand how the present dilemma has arisen. The issue has to be presented to those at that level.
I have been on the shop floor and taken part in industrial action. I was always reluctant to take action or to lead marchers when I knew that those I would lead would suffer. However, I have given certain advice to my union. The union is upset. It is not over-concerned about all the gobbledegook and nonsense that we meet in the House. It is concerned that an employer has told it how its members' conditions and pay will be affected. It is looking for some assurances. If the issue were put before the members on the basis of how their pay and conditions would be affected, they would recognise what was happening about the Common Market. They would take up the issue even though it might result in their losing wages. They would take that decision in the light of that consequence.
The union is seeking to get out of the difficulty to which I have referred. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I end my remarks. I think that I have explained the position. The House is in a sad position tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am glad that the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) referred to other

hon. Members wishing to take part in the debate, but there is not much time left for them.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. John Nott: At the time of the negotiations fishing and drivers' hours were the most important items for my constituents.
Reluctantly, because I believed that it was right for the United Kingdom to enter the Community, I accepted the position regarding drivers' hours, knowing that the current problem would arise in due course and cause the difficulties now facing us.
I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). The purpose of my intervention is limited. I agree that it is unsatisfactory to have an arrangement coming into effect to which the Government turn a blind eye and say "We are not going to enforce the law".
I want to know the facts from the Minister. My constituency is more than 280 miles—450 km—from virtually all its markets. At the time of the negotiations, I did not see much point in having a regional policy in the Community if we were to have this kind of arrangement. What is the purpose of a Community regional policy if the regions, one of which I represent, are grossly penalised by virtue of arrangements of this kind? I am in favour of being in the Community, but this is one aspect of it with which I disagree.
Does the Minister intend to turn a blind eye to this matter for six months or a year? I understand that he does. How long have transport operators in my constituency got before they know that the full rigours of enforcement will be brought to bear upon them? That is a factual question.
I understand that there have not been any prosecutions in the Community from the inception of the mileage regulations. I do not know why prosecutions have not been brought in the Community. Perhaps the Minister will answer that question. How long does he intend not to enforce these provisions?
Why have we still not got sufficient calibration stations in the South-West? Will he help to speed up the establishment of calibration stations in the South-West? If tachographs are fitted to


vehicles, mileage problems do not arise. I understand that there is a calibration station in Barnstaple, North Devon, but there is not one anywhere in Cornwall. It is not possible for transport operators to take their lorries to North Devon every time they have them serviced to have the tachographs recalibrated.
There are special problems involved here. Perhaps the Minister will comment briefly on them in reply to the debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) wish to give a brief explanation of the problem and why the Statutory Instruments Committee has not reported? If so, I shall call him next.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to explain why this document, headed "1978 No. 7" ought not to have come before the House as regulations that have been made. It ought to have come before us as a draft on a resolution by the Government asking the House to approve it. Indeed, it should have come as such before both Houses.
The document seeks to amend a pre-accession regulation by which we are bound. It is part of our law. Although it is not in the form of our law either by an Act of Parliament or by a Statutory Instrument, we are bound by it, but the time at which we are bound is delayed. That time is running out. The document seeks to extend the time. The regulations seek to bring into effect a Commission decision. We are not bound by a Commission decision unless we introduce it into our law.
The regulations can be made under the European Communities Act 1972. That Act gives the Government a unique discretion to choose the form in which the regulations shall come before the House. The Government do not have that unique discretion anywhere else in our law. Therefore, the House should watch that discretion and its exercise with care.
When should the Government choose to bring draft regulations before the House for consideration under the negative resolution procedure? Weight should be given to what Parliament has decreed

in an Act should apply to documents of this kind. Under the Transport Act 1968, as amended, documents which relate to drivers' hours must be made after a draft has been put to the House. The Government could have done that.
On three recent occasions the Government have brought before the House orders in draft and objections have been made. The drafts have been withdrawn and the orders remade. If the Government had adopted that course we should have had more time.
The Government chose the easy course. They chose to bring the document before the House under the negative procedure. They should have examined Part VI of the Transport Act and acted as they should have acted. Every document should be in draft and this matter should have come before us in draft.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Four weeks ago, from 9th to 16th January, my constituency was almost brought to a halt by a strike of 1,200 heavy goods vehicle drivers. It was a strike which received hardly a mention in the national Press or on television, but it was a strike which was disastrous for a port which depends upon the rapid movement of fish and of incoming supplies and a town which depends on food processing. It was a strike which almost wiped out some businesses and which caused 10,000 people to be laid off. It was a strike which was caused directly by the EEC transport regulations of which tonight's derogation is a part.
I am as enthusiastic about the EEC as the next man, provided I stand next to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on my left and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) on my right. I am as happy about the Market as I would be about any other disaster for this country—such as a Conservative Government. So in normal circumstances I would think of recent events as just another part of Common Market madness—something to be laughed at.
It is ludicrous that these regulations, made in October, did not reach us until 30th December. It is ludicrous that from 1st January to 26th January we had a legislative vacuum. It is ludicrous that, because of the misunderstandings and problems, we have to have an enforced


"honeymoon" of six months and one year for the 450 km.—the only enforced "honeymoon" in history which cannot be consumated. But the laughter stops when the misunderstandings and confusion that such rushed negotiations produce—the differences over whether they are enforced and the arguments over whether the offences are endorsable—continue to inflict a crippling strike on Grimsby. Then the laughter dies on the lips and turns to anger. People still do not know whether the regulations are to be enforced. There is confusion.
The case against the regulations has been well stated. They are explosive. I quote from a letter from an employer in Grimsby, who said:
Should the proposed Common Market legislation be implemented in its final form, or even interim form, I would anticipate that we would need to increase our tanker fleet by one-third and our general haulage vehicles by about one-quarter.
These regulations are particularly difficult at a time of pay policy. Worse still, they are inflexible. Everyone wants more time off for drivers, but not time off away from home. The regulations are unrealistic. They will be enforced in a different framework and within a different discipline and legal structure from what will be done in the EEC. It is no wonder that drivers want split licences and the same kind of spot fines and the easier enforcement that has developed on the Continent.
The regulations are ludicrous, particularly in respect of the 450-km limit, which is a back-door method of introducing the tachograph. That limit allows transport going from Grimsby to Liverpool to return to within 10 miles of Grimsby and then to stop. That is the situation which will arise in a year, after the "honeymoon" period has ended.
I support the tachograph in principle. It is just that I do not want it in the cab. But I observe that, in fact, the tachograph is in force already and that, according to the EEC Commission's background report of 21st December, the tachograph becomes legally compulsory after 1st January 1978. So, according to that, we already have the tachograph. We have a situation in which the Commission is perpetually delaying its announced intention of delivering a warning to the British Government to

implement the tachograph. It is a situation like "The Perils of Pauline". But we shall be in good company. So far, only Denmark has escaped censure for failing to implement some part of Regulations 543/69 or 1463/70. Proceedings in the European Court are already threatened against every other country for violating some aspect of these regulations.
The oddest situation is the one in which we find ourselves tonight, in which, if we agree to tonight's Prayer and throw out the regulations, we shall find ourselves back with the full majesty of Regulation 543/69 in all its lunacy. Since the Conservative Members who took us into the EEC are in part responsible for that state of affairs, because this is a part of the framework of regulations which existed when we came into the Common Market and which we accepted by the Treaty of Accession, they should have the courage of their convictions, press the Prayer and let us have the regulation in all its pristine folly so we can see the Market for the lunacy it is.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: This is a great night for those who wish to recruit for the anti-Market cause. The whole matter that we are discussing is nonsense, but I ask to whom we are addressing our comments. Perhaps the Minister can be persuaded to arrange for Hansard to be printed in French and German and then to have it distributed to those who have some influence on these matters.
The hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field (Mr. Fowler) defended his decision to introduce the Prayer on the principle that the Conservatives did not correct the mistake that he admits his party made, which fits in nicely with the whole tone of the nonsense we are debating.
The regulations affect many areas in Scotland and England. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is affected. My constituency gives one example of the sort of nonsense involved. From my front door to this house is 301 miles by motorway. If one uses the old doddery A30, the mileage is 254. It is, therefore, legal to use the road which was outdated 100 years ago but not to use the motorway.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) will explain to me, in view of his close connections with the union in question, just what is the objection to the tachograph. Why should not a tachograph be put in a lorry? Why should not I, as a citizen, have some assurance that the regulations which apply to these mammoth vehicles are being adhered to in respect of speed, for example? I do not understand why the Transport and General Workers' Union has made such a song and dance about this for such a long time. I can tell the hon. Member that his union's insistence on the regulations will cause some serious financial consequences in my area. It will not affect so badly the areas that are within 200 miles of London.
Who in Europe is in favour of these regulations? It appears that no one enforces them. Will the Minister tell us how many prosecutions there have been in France for lorries doing between 280 and 350 miles? I happen to know the answer. It is zero. I do not know who is in favour of the regulations. I have contacted people whom I have met by chance in various European organisations and have found no one in any European country who is in favour of these regulations or who will publicly say so. Where is the pressure coming from to keep this nonsense of a bandwagon going along the road?
I hope that, within the regulations which exist, the opposition to the tachograph will quickly collapse and allow the West Country and areas such as Berwick to have some degree of fair competition with other regions of this country in trying to achieve prosperity for our people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Minister wishes to reply at about 12.10 a.m.

12.6 a.m.

Mr. John Evans: The only comment in the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) with which I agreed was that this is a rather ridiculous way in which to conduct important debates. I am in full agreement with that comment.
When we consider the full significance of the regulations with which we are

dealing and recognise the hour of night and the length of time that this matter has been on the agenda, we can only wonder what the business managers of the House of Commons regard as important. In many respects this is something which will affect Scotland far more than the Scotland Bill, and we shall be interested to see what turns up in the future.
I say to Opposition Members—including the hon. Member for Truro (Mr Penhaligon)—that it is disheartening to come to this House on all these occasions when we debate EEC orders of one form or another and find them all protesting about the idiocies which come from Brussels and the Commission, because it was we who were denigrated in the 1970s for trying to put a counter-argument. Why were not Opposition Members arguing some of these issues in 1972 at the time of the so-called re-negotiations? It was because Opposition Members—including the Liberals—did not talk about them then that we are now stuck with the regulations.
The hon. Member for Truro said that no one is in favour of the regulations, and he asked where the pressure is coming from. It is coming from West Germany, from the West German politicians. The reason for that is that there is a great deal of Community traffic flowing through Germany, and Germany wants to turn traffic from the road on to rail. This is the method that the German politicians are using, and it is a very useful one.
When I read the report of the Second Reading debate on the Transport Bill which took place last week, I found that, with two minor exceptions, the EEC and its transport policies were not mentioned at all. I found it incredible, when there are so many issues before the Council of Ministers, emanating from the Commission, that will radically affect transport in this country, that no one should want to discuss these matters.
I have no intention of reading through the document that I have before me. It is from the Commission to the Council of Transport Ministers and is concerned with a working programme for the next three years. There are no fewer than 16 different matters relating to road and rail only. The document refers to the first directive on commercial vehicle taxation systems, uniform principles for the


calculation of railway costs, direct tariffs for railways, road vehicle weights and dimensions, the setting of deadlines for and conditions of railways' financial plans, plans of action on social regulations for road transport conditions to be pressed ahead as soon as possible, and so on. There are many more subjects. All those are in the transport field, yet in the Transport Bill in the House of Commons we did not manage to discuss any of them.
I could scarcely believe my eves when I read the hon. Gentleman's Prayer to annul the regulations. I noted his point that this was the only way in which to get a debate. Whether that is true, I do not know, but I was surprised that 60 colleagues signed the motion. Surely this can be done through the usual channels. Certainly one assumes, from what the hon. Gentleman said, that he would have insisted that this vitally important matter should be debated.
The regulations will give us a temporary derogation for three years. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 543/69 comes fully into operation on 1st January 1981. Whereas the regulations will reduce the continuous driving time to four and a half hours, the Council regulation provides for four hours. The daily driving time in our regulations is nine hours and in the Council regulations it is eight. The comparative figures for the driving week or fortnight are 54 hours and 106 hours in our regulations and 48 and 92 in Regulation No. 543/69. These figures have a considerable impact on road haulage costing.
For passenger transport there is a difference. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was clearly successful in persuading his European colleagues in the Council of Transport Ministers that there would be cataclysmic effects on our transport system. The Council regulation does not distinguish between drivers of goods vehicles and drivers of passenger vehicles. There is no reason why it should. They are all drivers, even if one is behind the wheel of a goods vehicle and one is behind the wheel of a coach. However, my right hon. Friend is clearly well aware of the cost effect on our haulage system and our passenger transport services.
If the regulations are annulled we shall be in grave difficulties. My right hon.

Friend will have to trot back to Brussels and say "I am sorry. The House of Commons would not accept them." The people there will think we have gone mad. They will say "You can have Regulation No. 543/69 as from now." If that happened, I do not know whether we could cope with the strikes that would undoubtedly occur in the transport industry.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the Secretary of State will be given time to reply.

Mr. Evans: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend wants to reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we were not allowed to fix the time for the debate. Many questions will have to be asked, and much more should be said about the regulation.
I finish on a point of fundamental importance. The regulation is about road safety, or so we have been repeatedly told—we have had the matter before us in the European Assembly for two years. No one will decry any aspect of improving road safety. But, although we are saying that a driver may drive for only a certain number of hours, we are not legislating against his taking a second job. There is nothing to stop a driver of a heavy goods vehicle performing his duties in accordance with the regulation and then taking a second job, even driving a taxi or a car.
That is the nonsense of the regulation. Clearly, we dare not regulate the life style of one section of the community alone. The nonsense is that we are not trying to outlaw moonlighting, which is widespread throughout the community.

12.14 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): It is not a question of my wanting to reply, but I assume that the House wants me to do so. I should be content to listen to what hon. Members have to say—they have raised important matters—but our debate ends at 12.30 a.m. and I understand that the hon. Member for Wellinborough (Mr. Fry) would like to say a few words before the close. Therefore, I regret that I am in any way curtailing the debate, but there is no alternative except not to answer the points that have been made.
I entirely agree with what has been said about these being very complicated


matters. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) spoke of contention, concern and problems, and I would not dissent. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) used the words "ludicrous" and "bureaucratic", and I would not dissent from those expressions. When the hon. Member for Truro (Mr Penhaligon) said that we should like the whole matter to go away, I found it very difficult to disagree with him.
But we are stuck with the fact that if the motion to annul the regulations is carried, we shall lose the benefits—they are important benefits—of staged implementation. In other words, the full rigour of the EEC regime will come into force immediately. There will be no question of my going back to Brussels to explain anything. It would come into force immediately. The effects would be disastrous, as all hon. Members agree.

Mr. Skinner: I thought I heard my right hon. Friend say that if we carried this motion tonight the full force of the EEC regime would be brought in. I had always assumed—I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has changed his mind—that my right hon. Friend was one of the most fervent and fanatical Europeans. What he should be saying, if he believes what he said during the referendum campaign, is that the full force of the European legislation will be brought in and provide benefits for all the lorry drivers and everyone else. Why is he not saying that?

Mr. Rodgers: I did not use the word "regime", he did. I referred only to these regulations. What I have said is consistent with my views. I believe that these are undesirable regulations. We have to face realities, and the reality of the situation is that if the motion is carried we shall be faced with a situation even more unsatisfactory than that facing us now.
I took note of what the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said and I will consider the implications of his remarks, as will, I am sure, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House if there has been any incorrectness in our behaviour. We were faced with a situation in which it was import

ant to make these regulations quickly because of the highly uncertain situation. If we have exceeded what was proper, we shall have learned from this experience. I appreciate the important points made by the right hon. Gentleman.
This debate is important not only to the House but to the industry as a whole, and I ought to place certain remarks firmly on the record. Regulation 543/69 was agreed by the original six members of the community before we were a member. The United Kingdom played no part in formulating it, and I think that this is to our credit. The regulation arose from circumstances in the six very different from our own because we have a long history of regulation of drivers' hours—social regulations as they are often called.
Under the terms of the Treaty of Accession, there was no renegotiation of the regulation. Strictly speaking, we were obliged, after five years' membership of the Community, to enforce the regulation in this country. The Commission had been given powers to defer it until 31st December 1977. It had no further power to grant deferment and, therefore, it was vitally important that the Government should do all they could to negotiate some amendment or some understanding about the regulation.
My objective, when the British presidency began last year, was to seek a situation in which the regulation could be implemented in stages from the beginning of this year. This was the best that we could expect. I should tell the House that the negotiations in which I took part with that objective in view were almost the most difficult I have known. They were delicate and they involved all other members of the Community. We always ran the risk that by not accepting what the other members of the Community wished we should find ourselves ultimately being obliged to enforce the regulation in full. It was not until 27th October last year, when we had a meeting of the Council in Luxembourg, that we succeeded in getting agreement in the Council of Ministers to a package which had important advantages for us in so far as there would be phased implementation.
Quite apart from the debate of 4th April last year, we kept in the closest touch with both sides of industry throughout our negotiations in the Community. It was essentially a combined operation


in so far as both sides of industry and the Government were seeking the best possible terms in difficult circumstances and in the light of the fact that we had been blocked by the inability of the French to agree to the principle of phased implementation at the Council meeting in June. At the end of the negotiations, we secured agreement that we should implement Regulation 543 by stages over three years. The solution was, in my view, and, I believe, in the view of the industry, the best that could have been achieved in all the difficult circumstances. Shortly after the Council had adopted the new regulation, we sent our proposals for staged implementation to the Commission for consideration. To avoid unnecessary upheaval within the industry we proposed two stages over the three years, the first to last for two years and the second for one year, with full implementation in January 1981.
It soon became clear, however, that the Commission's ideas of stages differed substantially from our own, and in the event the Government were not aware of the contents of the decision until almost the end of the year. The actual decision itself did not arrive in the United Kingdom until 2nd January. The necessary orders—Nos. 6 and 7 of 1978—were laid in Parliament on 5th January and, in deference to the 21-day rule, were made effective from 26th January.
It goes without saying—and I agree with all that my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said about it—that the late arrival of the Commission's decision has given rise to confusion and uncertainty throughout industry. I can only say that, in conjunction with both sides, we have done our very best to sort out the difficulties.
The Commission's decision permits the gradual implementation of the Community driving limits in the following way. For buses, the daily driving limit remains at 10 hours until the end of November but is reduced to nine and a half from 1st December 1978, and reduced again to nine hours on 1st October 1979, going down to eight hours, with a provision for nine hours twice a week, on 1st January 1981. For goods vehicles, the reduction to nine and a half hours comes on 1st December 1978, but the reduction to nine hours is on 1st July 1979. The final re

duction to eight hours is on 1st January 1981.
These are complicated regulations, and at one stage we had a choice between simplicity and finding a regime which would meet the somewhat different needs of the bus industry and of the road haulage industry. We decided to settle for the best terms we could get, and I believe that both sides of industry take the view that the formula is, in the circumstances, reasonable.
There is one change which has applied from the beginning of January. This is the imposition of a daily driving limit of 450 km for single-manned heavy articulated vehicles unless they are using a tachograph. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby, the hon. Member for Truro and others that I think that the whole question of the compulsory use of the tachograph and the possibility of infraction proceedings is a separate issue.
I fully understand that having a 450-km limit causes particular problems in distant places like the West Country, particularly Cornwall, and Scotland. The industry would not have been slow to remind me had I overlooked that. This is a flaw in what is otherwise a generally favourable settlement and is why we have said that there must be a so-called honeymoon period of rather longer—of up to a year—in this respect as in the other cases.
Of course, the industry cannot be expected to digest the details of the agreement and of implementation immediately. In practice, there is a long-standing tradition that, where there are changes in drivers' hours, there should be a honeymoon period of this kind, during which enforcement officers concentrate more on education in the law and giving advice than on attempting to bring prosecutions. I am sure it is right—there are precedents—to follow this practice on this occasion, and it is fully accepted by the enforcement authorities.
Under the new regulation the United Kingdom has certain powers of derogation in respect of vehicles such as minibuses, and there are other types of vehicle and journey to which the Commission has power to agree derogation. We are consulting both sides of industry


and all authorities and other bodies concerned about these powers, and it will take a little time before the final decisions can be made. In the meantime, of course, I would not want anyone to change operating practices in respect of the vehicles and purposes for which derogation is possible.
As I say, I have been in close touch, and my officials have been in close touch, with both sides of the industry on these matters, as on other matters such as the question of calibration centres, which also has been raised in the debate. I hope that together we shall be able to sort matters out and correct the misunderstandings which there have been.
I think that it will be quite a few months before we are able to reach finality on the various possibilities of derogation and before we have decided how best to harmonise the requirements of two sometimes conflicting codes. I recognise that this will create difficulties, but, as I have said, had we not been able to negotiate phased implementation there would have been far greater disturbance for the industry and disastrous implications for the economy as a whole.
We shall, of course, continue to work together not only to solve the remaining problems but also, over a period of time, in further negotiations in Brussels, to improve the basic regulation and to achieve some of the flexibility to which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred. That is certainly my aim, which, I believe, will be endorsed on both sides of the House and by all those who have doubts about the present situation.

12.26 a.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: Even after the Secretary of State's speech, anyone who has listened to this short debate must come to the conclusion that this whole situation is an unholy mess. It is an unholy mess constitutionally, legally and practically. Yet the only way by which the House can debate such an important matter is by the Opposition putting down a Prayer. I feel that hon. Members should be grateful to the official Opposition for having taken that decision.
It is right that we should debate this issue, and I must say that those who

criticise the shortness of the debate have much on their side. I hope that the Government will take note of the protests made tonight and recognise that this is a complicated issue with many facets, and that the House ought to be able to return to it on other occasions.
Let me take one example of the difficulties which have arisen. Until 24th January, operators in this country were under the impression that this new set of regulations would do away with the obligations under the Transport Act 1968, and particularly Section 96. Two days before these regulations were due to come into force, it was suddenly realised that the EEC law was not on all fours with the British law.
Thus, we have reached the ludicrous state of affairs in which, perhaps alone in Europe, our hauliers are bound by one set of regulations in terms of drivers' hours and another set of laws governing hours of duty. Our transport operators, therefore, are competing on grossly unfair terms vis-à-vis their rivals in Europe.
It is obvious that this situation must be remedied. The Government have the opportunity to remedy it. At this moment, the Secretary of State is piloting his Transport Bill through Committee. Why cannot he add a new clause to put right that glaring anomaly?
So far we have had a few fair words, and the right hon. Gentleman has talked about consultation. But there is a strong need for action. Without that action, we shall find that industry will stagger along and not be able to do its job properly.
I could give a whole list of practical suggestions. I take, for example, the 12 months' period which is supposed to be the period when no one will be prosecuted. If an operator breaks the distance limit and at the same time offends against some other road traffic law—

It being half-past Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned, pursuant to Order.

Orders of the Day — OPPOSITION PARTIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

Motion made,
That the Resolution of the House of 20th March 1975 shall have effect from 1st January


1978 with the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph 2 of that Resolution:
That for the purpose of determining the annual maxima of such assistance the following formula shall apply:
£550 for each seat won by the party concerned plus £1.10 for every 200 votes cast for it at the preceding General Election, provided that the maximum payable to any party shall not exceed £165,000.'—[Mr. Tinn.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — CHORLEY HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

12.31 a.m.

Mr. George Rodgers: I very much value this opportunity of explaining to the House and the Minister the anxieties that beset my constituents in Chorley, Leyland and a score of surrounding villages about the future of the Chorley Hospital.
It may be helpful to my hon. Friend the Minister if I point out that there exists a unique bond of affection between the local community and this hospital. In the days before the last war, working people contributed weekly through the trades council towards its upkeep, and even today local residents and local organisations raise considerable funds to provide comforts and amenities at the hospital.
It is important that I emphasise this happy relationship which has existed for many years, otherwise it might be thought that my represenations tonight reflect only the views of a few malcontents who are reluctant to accept change and progress. In truth, the threat to the standing of the hospital has generated an angry and quite spectacular response throughout the Chorley constituency. On one day of protest, the commercial and industrial activity of the whole area was practically halted as more than 10,000 people marched in protest at the curtailment of the hours of service by the accident and emergency unit at the hospital. Public meetings objecting to proposals designed to further diminish the available facilities have been crowded, and petitions of protest have been signed by tens of thousands of people.
The local weekly paper—the Chorley and Leyland Guardian—has covered the compaign on behalf of the hospital in great detail and concludes that full support must be given to a crucade to retain and enhance the range of services provided at Chorley. A special investigation covering all aspects of the hospital crisis was undertaken by the Lancashire Evening Post. This has resulted in a demand for a higher rate of financial investment in the local health services and an accelerated advance towards full district status for the Chorley Hospital.
The two local authorities, Chorley and South Ribble, have come out firmly in support of the public crusade for the retention and extension of services at Chorley, as has the community health council, which, of course, was created to enable the views of the public and the consumer generally to be taken into consideration when matters of this nature were being discussed.
It is against that background of widespread protestation that I wish to focus attention on four aspects of the situation that warrant urgent investigation. If those with responsibility are prepared to examine these issues and are willing to act on them where it is apparent that there is cause for concern, I am confident that good will can be restored and anxieites about the future of the Chorley Hospital set at rest.
First, I wish to comment on the strategic plan for hospital services in the Preston district—an envisaged programme which contains many sound and enlightened proposals. Unfortunately, there is some confusion when it describes the future role of the Chorley Hospital. In the original draft, there was no mention of the intention to close the children's ward at Chorley; this proposition has been introduced as an afterthought, probably as a consequence of the Rochdale inquiry. I have studied the report and recommendation and can well understand that those who are employed in this area of the Health Service should wish to avoid the possibility of another child dying in similar tragic circumstances. The attitude is correct and commendable. However, it is clear from the report that the death of the child was not due to the absence of a paediatrician or of any item of special equipment but occurred because


things went terribly wrong and unbelievable errors were made in clinical judgment.
I do not wish to dwell upon the case but only to say that it would be folly to relate the sad events of that night in Rochdale to the position in Chorley. Indeed, if the recommendation that all children from a wide district who are in need of hospital care should be under one roof regardless of their degree of illness is carried out, it is not difficult to recognise that those children furthest away from the roof in question could be placed at risk by having to make a long journey before their needs could receive attention.
There are obvious delays and dangers in having to transport a sick child to a distant hospital. In the case under review the nearest alternative children's ward would be at Preston some 10 miles from Chorley. The route is the scene of long and frequent traffic hold-ups, and, of course, some points of the present Chorley Hospital catchment area are much more than 10 miles from Preston.
The child would often be separated from parents and family by worse than miles and distance. The journey into Preston by public transport is desperately expensive, and for families without their own transport, who are still the majority, the cost of hospital visiting is an expensive item. The importance of this consideration to the well-being of the young patient should not be lightly shrugged off; the presence of friends and family can be an important factor in the recovery of a sick child. Clearly, the small children's ward at Chorley does a valuable job and should be retained. Already there as suspicions that children are being directed to Preston when they could be accommodated at Chorley, the purpose being to provide an impression that the children's ward is under-occupied. I am reluctant to believe that this is the case, but I am disturbed by letters I have received from the parents of children who have been sent to Preston for treatment that has previously been available at Chorley.
I must make it clear that I accept absolutely that for specialised and particular treatment it will be necessary for the sick child to become a patient at a hospital outside the immediate area. That is

common sense, and we are not without that commodity in Lancashire. We also believe that it is common sense to retain the children's ward in its present setting where it provides a useful and popular service to a growing community.
I turn now to the accident and emergency department. This is a well-equipped unit which is situated conveniently close to the motorway system but which has functioned only on an "office hours" basis since 1974. This is not one of the many casualty departments throughout the country that have closed, or face closure, because of a rationalisation of the service. The position here is that the regional and area health authorities are anxious to see the unit operating on a 24-hour basis and have made this clear on numerous occasions.
Unhappily, the restriction on the hours of service is in force because of the inability of the health authority to recruit qualified medical personnel. It has been said that the reason for this is the poor career prospects in this discipline. If this is so, I must ask my hon. Friend what is being done to remedy the problem. Another theory given for the seeming reluctance of doctors to man the accident department is that they would prefer to be employed in units attached to the larger hospitals where the range of activity and of equipment is greater. To laymen such as myself, it would seem that doctors should serve a group of hospitals rather than one, which would overcome the problem. If this brings complications, let us by all means hear about them.
It is quite ludicrous that a casualty unit located in an area of population growth and amidst heavy industrial development should be closed during evenings and weekends. Qualified staff must be recruited so that building and equipment are utilised in a sensible fashion. The Government have wisely acted to increase the numbers in the medical profession by encouraging a greater intake of students, and this should improve the situation in coming years. Though the blame for current problems may lie with previous Administrations, a determined effort must be made immediately to correct a position which allows instruments and premises to stand idle while injured people are carried past the hospital gates in search


of an accident unit which is adequately staffed.
I must mention one other point before I leave the question of the casualty department. When the initial closure took place, the unit was closed entirely. Subsequently it has reopened, though, as I have indicated, it has not yet resumed a round-the-clock service. Incredibly, when the unit closed down completely, the public were informed by a notice posted at the hospital entrance. The local authority was neither consulted nor advised. Such off-hand behaviour inevitably creates resentment and hostility. Fortunately, the lines of communication between the health authorities and local government have since improved considerably—and not before time. Nowadays, there is a massive exchange of correspondence and a multitude of meetings, but I cannot pretend that the problems that afflict the hospital have diminished—indeed, in many respects, the situation in recent months has worsened.
My third area of concern is the pace of advancement towards full district status for the Chorley Hospital. On this there is no dispute at all with the regional health authority on the principle. In fact, the authority is advocating that the hospital be upgraded at the earliest date possible. Any differences lie in how quickly district status can be achieved, and the rapidity of the accomplishment is largely dependent on the availability of resources.
The Registrar General's population figures show a growth in the population of Chorley from 79,490 to 83,100 and in South Ribble from 87,330 to 92,000 during the years 1972 to 1976. Ironically, a substantial growth in population is under way in the immediate vicinity of the hospital. Several thousand new houses have already been constructed under the auspices of the Central Lancashire New Town and many thousands more are being built at the present time or are in the pipeline. All new town development of any consequence is taking place south of the River Ribble, yet hospital facilities are being concentrated at the northern end of the territory.
It would be ridiculously parochial if one disadvantaged area of the North-West were to begrudge another area much-needed Health Service provision, and I do not intend to tread that road. None

the less, circumstances have changed since plans were laid for new hospital development north of the river. If the formula on which the plans were made has become obsolete, logic demands that the plan be changed. To concede that one is wrong is merely to say "I am wiser today than I was yesterday "—and this applies to vast organisations as well as to individuals. The modified plans of the Central Lancashire New Town mean that the incoming population will be accommodated in the Chorley and Leyland districts; therefore, hospital extension must take place in that area. The Chorley Hospital has an abundance of land at its perimeter available for development. In short, everything points to the desirability of a swift progression to full district status in the early future.
My concluding observations are about the financial implications of meeting the problems that I have outlined. I appreciate that it is very easy to leave this calculation out of the debate entirely, which might enable me to make an emotionally attractive speech which could appeal to my constituents but which would be cowardly in evading the realities of the situation.
The reality is that the Health Service could consume the nation's entire budget, such is the cost of sophisticated equipment, of new buildings and of maintenance and running costs. Even if the Government were to abandon investment in education, welfare provision, transport and everything else, giving all our funds to the Health Service, it would still not be sufficient to meet all needs, and clearly there is no question of finance on this scale ever becoming available.
However, accepting the overall limitations, I am convinced that our resources can be allocated more sensibly and more fairly. Already the Department of Health and Social Security has taken bold and decisive steps to divert funds from the more prosperous regions of the country and direct them towards disadvantaged areas such as the North-West. I approve and applaud the decision to implement the recommendation of the Working Party on the Allocation of Resources. This will mean that over a period of time the most hard-pressed regions will receive additional support to meet their formidable, almost overwhelming, problems in the field of health care.
The North-West Region has generated the wealth of the nation. It still puts more into the national kitty than it gets out. It has a higher death rate, a higher incidence of disease, a more polluted atmosphere and a greater proportion of decayed housing stock than any other region. Unemployment is higher than the national average, and there are fewer doctors and dentists per head of population than elsewhere. It is small wonder that a weighted allocation of funds is a desperate necessity.
An enlightened Government are now endeavouring to bring some justice and decency to a deprived region. I suggest that what is being done is insufficient, and my concern is shared by the leader of the North-West Regional Health Authority, Mr. Sidney Hamburger, who complains that the pace of reform is too sluggish and that there is still too much indifference in Whitehall to the needs and entitlements of his hard-hit region.
I took to my hon. Friend to convey to the Secretary of State the anger and resentment of folk in the North-West, and especially in Lancashire, at the imbalance of wealth and resources within our own country and amongst our own people.
Finally, when the strategic plan for hospital services in the Preston district has been assessed and approved by the various health authorities in the North-West Region, it will be forwarded to the Secretary of State for final decision. I hope that the criticisms that I have felt compelled to make on behalf of my constituents will have been needed and the plan amended accordingly. If not, I call upon my right hon. Friend to reject the proposals as they affect the Chorley Hospital because they do not reflect the needs and desires of the people—and that, after all, is the whole point and purpose of our health and hospital services.

12.46 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate this issue, which I know is of very great concern to the inhabitants of Chorley.
I pay tribute to the vigour with which my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) has argued the case for Chorley Hospital over a number of years.

He sent my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a copy of the formal objection which he addressed last October to the North-Western Regional Health Authority about plans which had been put forward for the future of hospitals in the Preston district. In December he took part in a meeting which was arranged between representatives of the regional health authority and of the Chorley and Ribble borough councils. Going even further back, in April 1975 he led a deputation to my predecessor, who is now Foreign Secretary, which presented a petition signed by a large number of Chorley residents, to which he has referred, expressing the same view.
The main issues which have exercised my hon. Friend's constituents were set out in the petition which he laid before the House on 13th December last. My right hon. Friend's observations on the petition have been circulated. Tonight I have the chance of dealing fully with some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised.
One issue is that of the accident and emergency service at Chorley. It is restricted. It was restricted in 1974 from a 24-hour service to a 9 a.m.-5 p.m. service. As my hon. Friend rightly divines, the problem is one of insufficient medical staff to provide the essential medical cover. This is still the factor preventing the extension of this service, and it is a problem that is not peculiar to Chorley but one that I find up and down the country in quite a number of places. The area health authority has reaffirmed that it will continue to make every effort to recruit the appropriate staff to enable the hours of the service to be extended.
The problem is that the accident and emergency service at Chorley is one principally for minor accidents, as it has been for many years. This means that, because of the need to have available the full range of back-up facilities which are required to deal with serious accidents, a full accident and emergency service is at present provided only at the Preston Royal Infirmary. Although the journey to Preston, or, indeed, to Wigan—which is about eight and a half miles from Chorley—may take longer, the problem is that the longer journey and the risks attached to that have to be weighed against the risks of taking people to an accident and emergency centre,


such as that at Chorley, which is not fully equipped to deal with serious cases.
I am fairly sure that what will happen is that, as Chorley Hospital develops into a full district general hospital, full consideration will be given to the need for a full accident and emergency service and department at the expanded hospital.
In the meantime, the department is too small to attract the services of a consultant, which is the main grade for providing medical care, and registrars cannot work without consultant supervision. Secondly, as my hon. Friend says, the personnel being persons under training, the accident and emergency department at Chorley does not provide the appropriate range of accident and emergency work or, indeed, the equipment to give them the breadth of experience necessary to enhance their skills.
In the long run this particular problem may be remedied, but in the short run, although I am sure that all that can be done will be done to ensure proper medical staffing, we have to rely on the willingness of doctors to work at Chorley and other accident and emergency departments of similar size up and down the country. I have indicated why doctors may not always be willing and why those who are willing may be hard to find.
I turn to the question of the children's ward at Chorley Hospital. I do not want to go into too much detail, because there is the possibility that the matter will be referred to my right hon. Friend for a decision and our position has to be reserved. He would not want his decision prejudiced by anything I might say. The issue is also rather different because it is really one of deciding what deployment of services will be in the best interests of the population served.
At present the hospital has a 10-bedded children's acute ward. Last year the Lancashire Area Health Authority published proposals for the future use of hospital accommodation in the Preston district. One proposal was that, on completion of phase two of the new hospital, the children's ward at Chorley should be closed and the service continued in the much larger children's unit at Preston. It is possible that after the consultation the AHA may drop or modify the proposal. On the other hand, if it goes ahead

in the teeth of opposition from the community health council, the House knows that the procedure we have laid down for dealing with proposed closures provides that the matter is referred to my right hon. Friend for a final decision. I know that my hon. Friend and those for whom he speaks are taking a full part in the local consultations and I can assure him that, if the matter is referred to my right hon. Friend, the arguments that he has advanced so persuasively will be taken into account. We may need to refresh ourselves as Lo their content nearer the date of the decision.
My hon. Friend referred to children who have to go to Preston when beds appear to be free at Chorley. This situation may arise because of the requirements of individual children. If they require the specialised treatment that only the larger hospital can provide, doctors sometimes think that, despite the vacant beds at Chorley, it would be better for the children to go to Preston.
Finally, I should like to look at the case argued by my hon. Friend for Chorley Hospital to be advanced to full district status. The principle here is not in question. The argument is purely and simply about the timing of such a development, and this is something that has to be seen in the context of the other pretty heavy pressures facing the North-Western Region. The region has inherited some of the oldest hospital buildings in the country. Two-fifths of them were built before the turn of the century and more than half before 1918. There are also pockets of serious under-provision in certain services and certain localities. They are worst in services for the mentally handicapped, the elderly, especially those suffering from severe mental infirmity, and the mentally ill, but, looking at the region as a whole, one finds that there are deficiencies in some places almost right across the range of services.
The strategic plan which the regional health authority published just a year ago sets out a comprehensive programme for trying to remedy these deficiencies. The view that the regional health authority has taken is that the filling of outright gaps in the level of services must command the highest priority and that replacing old buildings and correcting the mislocation of services, desirable though


both these aims are, must take second place.
Chorley is part of the Preston district. For hospital purposes it divides itself into two parts. The northern part, comprising Preston borough and part of South Ribble borough, looks to Preston for its hospital services. In 1981 it has a planning population of about 200,000. The other part of Chorley and the remainder of South Ribble, for which Chorley is the natural centre, will have an estimated 1981 planning population of about 150,000. That figure takes into account the projected increase in the population of the Central Lancashire New Town.
The district has under construction a major new hospital at Fulwood to the north of Preston. It will be the region's first entirely new large hospital since the start of the National Health Service. The first phase will be completed this year. The second phase will be completed in about 1980. There will then be a total of over 700 beds. In all this planning, the region took into account the deficiencies in certain of the district's services, especially general medicine, children's services, geriatrics, accident and orthopaedic services. All these will be provided at the new hospital.
There is also a need to replace some of the wards of the old Preston Royal Infirmary, which is more than 100 years old. When this is all done, there will be a total of about 1,060 acute beds in the district. Apart from the children's unit, the opening of the new Preston hospital will not affect services at Chorley.
The trouble at Chorley, of course, is that its services will to a large extent be off-centre. At Preston and Chorley, patients will be obliged to go to Preston. Although there is a reasonable level of public transport, which I do not underrate, there will be considerable inconvenience for patients and visitors. I am afraid that that has to be accepted as one of the problems. The region intends that Chorley will be developed into a full district general hospital in time.
It will be clear to my hon. Friend that the problems of Chorley, as with so much of the North-West, stem directly from at least 30 years of neglect of the area's problems in favour of lusher medical and hospital pastures elsewhere. As a course

to be followed—I cannot call it a policy—I find it indefensible.
As my hon. Friend has recognised, we are the first Government to have recognised fully the needs of the North-West and to have started the region on the road to getting its fair share of the National Health Service budget. This year the region has had a growth rate of 3·2 per cent. in its revenue allocation, which is higher than any other region and more than twice the national average. Under this Government, a similar pattern will be repeated in future years. However, because the region has been so badly deprived of resources in the past, it will still take time to meet all the needs that have been recognised.
I cannot accept, as my hon. Friend reports Mr. Sidney Hamburger feels, that the region is ignored in Whitehall and Westminster. My right hon. Friend and I have spent more time in the North-West than in any other part of the country. Our whole policy is designed to come to its relief. We have incurred much criticism in other parts of the country in following that policy, not least in the areas that we represent as Members of Parliament. I appreciate that the pace of help must appear painfully slow to the people of Chorley, but 30 years of neglect, not only of Chorley but of the surrounding towns, will take a little time to correct. However, we shall do our utmost, so long as we have power, to keep faith with the health service in that part of the world.
I might not be able to give the answers that my hon. Friend would most like to hear, but I hope he will understand the extent to which the matters we have been discussing fall within the responsibility of area health authorities and regional health authorities and will accept that they must have reasonable discretion to take decisions in the light of their knowledge of the local picture. I hope I have persuaded him that those decisions are not taken lightly and that the authorities do their best to strike a fair balance between competing claims with a finite amount of resources. On any matters that are referred to us, we shall give as fair a hearing as we can to both sides of the argument.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock.